Georgia Dioxin Risk “Six Times” Greater Than East Palestine & US Journalist Taken Hostage By Israel

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Official narratives, I'm supposed to be excited that
a woman might be elected to the highest
office in the country. After years of the
same official narratives claiming Trump can't be trusted
because he's a dangerous authoritarian who lacks integrity,
I'm supposed to be delighted that a dangerous
authoritarian who lacks integrity, might become president because
she has a pussy. This person extended sentences
of non violent prisoners in California when her
attorney general's office wanted to keep next to
free labor for fire

(00:26):
fighting. Denied women and men bodily autonomy while
claiming to champion it, but apparently only for
women's reproductive organs, a gross objectification of women.
Failed to prosecute excessive force by police cases
as attorney general. Is funded by the financial
sector, the defense industry, big tech, the pharmaceutical
industry, and the corporate oligarchy at large, and
has helped impose policies that benefit them. Like
nearly all American politicians, she continues to profess

(00:49):
undying support for Israel while the Israeli military
keeps killing civilians with American weapons, comes from
a regime that is aggressively police free speech,
continually calls for gun control, which amounts to
stripping millions of people of their rights to
punish the bad actions of a few, like
all politicians, supports perpetuating the American empire claiming
I will ensure
America always

(01:09):
has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in
the world. And promises disastrous economic policies, some
of which even the corporate media propping her
up won't endorse. Absolutely none of this represents
me. The mentality that oppressed people deserve power
simply because they belong to groups of people
who have been oppressed is a manifestation of
the same toxic tribalism and collectivism that contributed

(01:29):
to the oppression in the first place. More
importantly, this delusion glorifies power for the sake
of it, ignoring that it's this power that
in large part allowed the oppression to begin
with. This culturally accepted obsession with political power
and violent authority and wielding it over others
reflects a deeply authoritarian mindset and dogmatic obedience
to the ruling system. The same system someone
like Kamala Harris is being falsely portrayed as

(01:50):
a challenger to because she's a minority on
several counts. This is also true for anyone
seeking political power, or in those who cultishly
cheer their efforts while ignoring obvious instances of
hackery and hypocrisy.
If you actually want empowerment for women or
anyone else, you'll have to stop seeking power
over others through violent institutions run by corrupted
evil people, no matter what collective they may
belong to. To start judging people by their

(02:12):
actions, not excusing their corruption because they belong
to a collective you like and spout rhetoric
that appeals to you. No matter your political
beliefs, if you want true freedom and respect
for humanity, the only way to get it
is to evolve past a system that has
inherently denied it for so long, not seek
power over that system and by extension your
fellow humans. I, for 1, will not be
participating in glorified yet primitive rituals that give

(02:33):
the peasants an illusion of control and empowerment
as they consent to their own oppression, not
even if it lets little girls believe it.
They too can wield violent authority, drone strike
civilians, prop up oppressive regimes, empower the ruling
class, and run the world.

(03:13):
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show
dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent
news as we see it from the last
24 hours. Thursday, October 10th,
2024.
Thank
you for
joining me today.
Pretty important show today. Something that I was
really

(03:34):
hoping I was wrong about
in regard to what's going on in Georgia.
And it's something that is
a much bigger problem than even what we're
discussing in Georgia.
And I'm not really gonna get into
I mean, I I guess I am to
a degree discuss the
reality of that problem, but this deserves so
much more attention.

(03:54):
And this has to do with dioxins
as a general problem that your government, that
your supposed health agencies are supposed to be
they're they're very well aware of and have
been
for decades.
Like, pretty much all the things we talk
about, PFAS. You know, it's ongoing kind of,
like, willful ignorance even though there are studies
showing you it's dangerous, and there's a kind

(04:15):
of a you know, nod to we're looking
into it or kind of going you know,
we're gonna find out the risk and, you
know, 20, 40 years go by. Not even
exaggerating.
And then we look back, you know, and
and then suddenly, you know, we have a
East Palestine problem and EPA is like, dioxins.
Like, you guys saw that clip. We played
it when it happened. It took weeks for
them to even acknowledge that. And when it

(04:36):
got brought up in the first press conference,
it was like they'd never even heard the
word before.
And we know for a fact that they
know very well what that is. So that's
it is to show you in that immediacy
in the immediacy of this issue that they're
being dishonest. That's obvious.
But it really does need to make you
recognize as I'm sure I'm you all aware
mostly well aware of that there's a much

(04:58):
bigger problem than that. And that we saw
this during the COVID 19 illusion. We see
that with them and everything we're talking about.
But they this is a a institutional problem,
a a not not one individual or one
group. I mean, it very well could be
a controlling entity or grouping,
but it's something that is much bigger than
just how they're dealing with one issue or
another.
And and the obvious part that affects you

(05:20):
directly,
not just in Georgia, but, I mean, I'm
in Tennessee. I'm
unfortunately much closer than
understanding how this works, and we'll get into
it.
Even East Palestine was later admitted to have
gone pretty much all the way to the
East Coast and multiple states across. And that's
in that's very real risk, not just some
small carryover.
Dioxins, as we'll point out again, are the

(05:42):
most dangerous chemical on the planet, specifically TCDD,
which I briefly forgot the other day. Funny.
So many different topics. You have to keep
these things in your mind.
And this is ultimately what we're dealing with
when it comes to the burning of chlorine,
chlorine, chlorine products,
vinyl chloride, and typically alongside other
contaminants,
burn paper, styrofoam.

(06:04):
And if you could've thought of if you
could've laid out, imagining what what how can
we create the worst possible dioxin problem? What
would that look like? Well, you would just
take straight chlorine and make that the burning
the combustible product within the problem, and make
sure that it was surrounded by a bunch
of styrofoam and pallets and paper and other

(06:24):
chemicals.
And then what would happen was that we
because of the burn
products and the material that would be used
to, you know, that that's what you're seeing
with the smoke and the dark clouds, along
with the burn chlorine specifically,
it equals the most obvious
the worst possible dioxin outcome.
And we just went over that recently. So
today, we're gonna go over the information as

(06:46):
it followed up. We now know that a
the very person who was in a way
sort of whistleblowing but responsible for this from
the government of Georgia was in the middle
or was
gave the speech around why this is a
problem while it seems there's even a cover
up going on and then died in the
hallway.
Not a joke.
Now who who knows why? He was having
shortness of breath while he was talking. He

(07:06):
is in this area, and we're gonna get
into, other people are having nosebleeds and headaches
and all sorts of stuff just like we
saw in the beginning of east Palestine,
but it could be something else. On top
of that, Scott c Smith, who we've referenced
in east Palestine, just got back. His his
testing is still be going through the process,
but he spoke with Jarrett Jordan Sheraton, and
we're gonna show you some of the things
that he said. And it I mean, it

(07:27):
it floored me. I literally changed the title
after we'd after I went I went through
this and I was watching, and I kinda
already had it lined up on what I
was thinking I was gonna do today. I
mean, I I borderline wanted to put this
everything off and just talk talk about this.
But just with time, as you guys know,
I wanted to make sure I got you
a few other things today. But I'm gonna
make sure we clip this opening part out
that we can see for just this topic

(07:48):
later. I'm sure my Brock will probably do
the same.
But the what he's finding,
the testing he's seeing I mean, in his
own words,
the chlorine the the the base of the
problem
is 6 times greater than what he saw
in his Palestine.
And I think this has to be some
this needs to change the conversation.

(08:09):
And, again, we I like, I I almost
want to make sure we focus on this
just from the
government malfeasance around it.
My point being, let's say we find out
tomorrow that there's some larger story around this
area and why they would wanna make it
a disaster zone. And, yes, those are real
things, like, we keep seeing in every topic,
which kinda makes you start to wonder whether
that is actually part of what's happening or

(08:29):
it's more of a partisan manipulation. Always knowing
that it's obviously very real and possible that
there could be some of a lar some
larger story around it. That's what we talk
about more often than not.
My point in this, though, is that if
we don't deal with the immediacy of this
issue
instead of, like, with East Palestine,
pulling it back into some larger overlap with
the great reset, and all of which was

(08:50):
very possible, as far as I could tell,
turned out not to be the case until
maybe, you know, the may the meat of
that story becomes real in our lives and
we recognize that it was connected. My point
is that we missed the forest for the
trees. I've said this so many times. Norfolk
Southern, Allenshaw,
nothing.
Seems like they came out ahead from that
situation. And they broke the law everywhere. Lied
to people involved, allowed the problem to be

(09:11):
as bad as it was, covered it up,
and the government helped.
And now we're here again. So if we
don't deal with this problem, and start addressing
the lack of
I mean, it's just like with North Carolina.
I mean, it doesn't have I mean, I
don't I think it's dangerous to make it
a broad stroke concept, to say that everybody
everywhere doesn't care. They're trying to kill you,
which is kind of what we're seeing from
a lot of the partisanship, which obviously, you

(09:33):
know I agree that there's a lack of
concern for your life or even a deliberate
effort to some of the darker levels of
this if you wanna talk about depopulation.
But to, let's say, argue that they're just
manufacturing weather disasters because they just decided they
wanna kill people in the United States, It
just is clumsy. It's a clumsy argument. There's
much more going on than that. Now we're
gonna get into a lot of this today
and talk about that conversation about what's happening

(09:55):
in Georgia and why it should matter
and how monumental this feels. And how already
it seems they're trying to cover up this
story. As Scott himself will tell you, he
was refused access to areas where the locals
were the ones asking him to come in.
But also the conversation around
not necessarily the immediacy of the ongoing disaster
in North Carolina, but some of the things
it that I think are very important. And,

(10:16):
yes, people are still suffering. And, yes, your
government is actively concerned more about money and
liability than you. Just like it just like
the story was 3 or 4 days ago.
To me, I find it more important to
focus on the things and I feel I
feel for the people suffering. I think it's
important that we focus on the fact that
the government is letting them down. But if
all we're doing is hyping on that dynamic
and trying to add bigger stories to it,

(10:38):
which I'm kinda gonna focus on in a
minute, it seems like there's the people of
North Carolina are suffering because of that. And
I know a lot of them are speaking
up about that right now. I think they
see it too. So it's important to make
sure we recognize that. Look at all of
the pictures, but don't
allow the hyperbolic discussion to pull you away
from what's immediately happening. So we're gonna talk
about Elon Musk and Starlink and a bunch

(10:58):
of different things that overlap with this conversation
that I think are very relevant
and some other lies that have been floating
around about FEMA and different things happening. Again,
with the overarching point being that historically,
not unique to the Biden administration, during disasters,
whatever left or right administration, we see that
they turn down donations if they're not on
approved lists. We've talked about this over many

(11:18):
administrations in the last show. Verifiably so. Or
the fact that they will turn away people
trying to help. We saw this in Harvey,
we saw it in Katrina.
So I've again, I think it's important that
we recognize that that's happening, but there are
people right now who are trying to make
everything that's going on only apply to one
level of the game so they can use
it for the next stage.
And that is just dishonesty.

(11:40):
So we're also gonna get into some important
conversation
or conversations around the foreign policy point. And,
well, we'll see if we'll see I mean,
I don't know how long this first part
will take, and so we'll it will get
to parts from foreign policy that I wanna
cover, including how,
specifically,
Jeremy Lofredo was taken by Israel. And I
used the term hostage on purpose today in

(12:02):
the title. Because if we're gonna throw around
these terms like they mean nothing I mean,
it's it's an applicable term,
clearly.
But my point being is that obviously we've
got more specific, like, detainee, POW in regard
to what's going on in Gaza, which of
course we just love to throw around hostages
and incorrect terms. My point being is if
we're gonna label it that way, then clearly
we can see how this person being taken
with no charge being levied. And and and

(12:22):
we're gonna go through how clear this is
and how obvious how this is an attack
on an on a journalist
for doing the right thing, for covering what
needs to be shown.
And where's all the American right? Where's the
American left? Where is your government? Where are
the people who should be up in arms?
Where are all the journalists? Going, how dare
you take a journalist, let alone an American
journalist if you think that should matter anymore,

(12:43):
should for the US government?
Where are you right now? Where's the America
First people who just saw an American journalist
get taken by Israel? Well, there are many
of them are probably cheering on Israel's genocide.
And I'm talking about the left right team
sport politics, not just conservatives. Because I think
most of them are starting to see this.
But I think it's important we see the
lines that are being crossed. Or

(13:03):
UN peacekeeping teams. And, you know, despite all
of the horrifying coverage that I myself have
been a part of around the UN missions
and peacekeepers themselves, but the reality being that
this is an I well, it's a multifaceted
group. But an Irish group and the UN,
I think it's UN, I don't wanna misquote
it. It's a specific grouping within the UN,
as peacekeepers that are positioned in Lebanon.
Israel's bombing them, or rather, be around them,

(13:26):
attacking them, and they recently just opened fire
on them. As of yesterday into today.
Now if we have time, we're gonna get
to all of that. The point being is
that this is something that is right on
your face. On top of the other stuff
we'll get to, the ongoing problems with Gaza,
the ongoing attacks of Lebanon, the unbelievably
obvious reality that this is illegal in every
strut, every way you look at it, Every
angle, every corner, every action, what they're doing

(13:49):
is illegal.
And you know what? I'm tired of breaking
down the reality that every single person in
the world seems to know that, even the
ones lying about it. So we'll leave it
there to start. Let's get into the point
well, actually, first, I wanna make sure I
like usual, this is the great clip that
I love Carrie Weather. She does such great
work. I mean, it really I you know,
in some ways, I know that people that
are really embedded like a tic in the

(14:09):
2 party illusion hate what she does because
it clearly makes them self conscious about what
they're doing, which I think sometimes is necessary
for the people that are that deep into
it. But if you're objective and you're just
kinda lost by a lot of the partisan
lies, when you watch what she's doing, it's
so clear. It really does put it in
a very cartoonish light what they are and
what they're doing. Because it is, guys. It's

(14:30):
this is you get this point we make
all the time. When you pull back from
the corporate media, when you realize what it
is, you just you can't turn back around
and start engaging with it like a genuine.
It feels like a cartoon. What they do
feels childishly stupid because you now see through
it. Why we can't see it while you're
in the midst of it, I don't really
know. But I and and some people just
carent to see it. But we all kind
of know that when you're in it, you

(14:50):
don't necessarily see it the same way. So
my point is that people that are kind
of, you know,
lost in it, but are objective will watch
this and stand back, and then you can't
turn that switch again.
So get this in front of people.
One other thing before we get going, I
recently just put us on Kik.
It's a new platform. I wasn't able to
get it working with StreamYard for some reason,

(15:11):
but I used, Restream and it's working. So
we are now live on Kik with 3
viewers, rock and roll. So share that if
you'd like. I'm not familiar with the platform,
but as you know, I'll put it pretty
much anywhere, see how it works. So get
that out there.
Now oh, you know, I it's for I
I forgot I changed this around. I wanted
to shout this out. First, it was actually
because I thought this was being censored. It
turns out SoundCloud was having sort of an

(15:33):
issue today. But I put up my new
song today. I was gonna play it in
the beginning, but what I'm gonna do is
I'm gonna play it on the way out
today. So I don't imagine this will be
as long as usual, but it could be.
My point is that if you wanna hear
the new song, it's on my SoundCloud. It'll
be included in the show notes. If you
know where the SoundCloud is, it'll be there.
I'll be posting it on Twitter and elsewhere
as we go forward, probably my sub substack
and my website. But I'm gonna play it

(15:53):
at the end today with some kind of
just I think I'm maybe gonna play the
money game video with just kind of whatever
that random video was of people protesting
on the way out today. So if you
wanna hear it on the first time played
live, stay tuned to the end. It'll be
played on the way out. And it's I
love this song. It's called the truth will
come, Featuring James Acnes playing lead guitar.

(16:13):
Now what I wanted to say before we
get into everything is that if you're out
there and you and you wouldn't even like
my music, if you are like minded,
and you wanna make a music video for
this, I'd like somebody to make something for
this. And if and if and if you'll
if you if you if I like it,
I can, you know, give you credit for
it, put your name on it, it'll be
your video for TLav.
Or I don't care whether you wanna do

(16:33):
some AI thing or whether you wanna make
them compilation or you wanna make clips of
TLav in the background. Whatever you think would
be cool. Send them my way. Because I
I thought I wanted to do something today
and I wouldn't have time to put it
together. But I'd love to see something cool
for this or any of them for that
matter. I mean, because all I've ever really
used is just kind of, you know like,
I thank you for those that have done
great work in the past. Like the one
for Money Game. It's a really cool video.

(16:54):
It's compilations of protests and different people standing
up, so awesome.
Something like that, if you'd like to do
it for the other ones,
I'd be very happy about that. So we
we got a good little thread going here.
I wanna start putting together a little album
probably. This is my 5th original, couple covers.
So if you don't know what's there by
the way, check out the the the work,
which I was pretty bummed about today. I
for a moment, SoundCloud was down and I

(17:15):
thought it was being censored. I was of
course, why not? Over 10,000,
plays already on Money Game, which is pretty
cool. Over a 1000 downloads.
I just I I didn't know it was
getting as much reach as it was, so
that's fantastic. So you see what I mean?
It was showing this, had been removed, and
I thought we were censored. It turns out,
as we now probably see, that it's back
up. So but it's hard when you're being
censored everywhere to not think that that's exactly

(17:35):
what it looks like. Oh, and then here
I deleted my post because I was like,
SoundCloud took my stuff down and the guy
chimed in and said, no, mine's down too.
So appreciate that. Hi, Puran.
Funny name.
So also on the note of censorship as
we get started, Derek put out his amazing
interview with David Ike, which you can find
on his platform and on on, or in
right here by the way and on on
his other platforms as well.

(17:56):
As he anticipated, he writes, YouTube of course
took down their interview which they've been on
a little tear lately on just censoring.
Yeah. You know, I'm maybe it's because it's
people that I see around me, but I've
seen a lot recently of David Icke, of
of, Rachel Blevins. I was recently on her
show, maybe it hasn't gone out yet.
And, a a few others. Just being censored
randomly mostly around Israel. Like, she was had
a great interview with Miranda,

(18:17):
professor, and and it and it was apparently,
she was getting more views in the first
couple hours than, like, any video she's ever
had. Channel gone. And I'm telling you guys,
that's what this is about. It's artificially controlling
viral content. We can always
find ways to circumvent the control structure, the
censorship, at least the way it is now.
Even, like, let me look at TLAB for
example. It's taken me, what, 15 years to,

(18:38):
like, eke out some growth in this plat
I mean, when when reality, I argue that
we remember having interviews that this are the
same people that go on mainstream media or
Tucker Carlson. There's a reason that we don't
have the same reach perception or anything else
because I think we're artificially held back. My
personal opinion. My point is when we do
a video about, let's say, rolling out 5
g during COVID 19 and it, like, instantly
jumps to a 1000000 views and then our

(18:59):
platform gets deleted, which is what happened.
And on top of that, those videos are
they wrote an entire article about the only
time I've been fact checked by corporate media
was when that happened. And I didn't even
conflate the 2 things. I simply said 5
g was being rolled out under the guise
of COVID, and they acted like I was
conflating the 2 even though there is interesting
overlaps there. But my point is that that's
how that works. Now what would have happened
had they not done that?

(19:20):
All of a sudden, millions of views start
rolling in because what's this great video we're
all seeing? Let's go check out the rest
of the work. And all of a sudden,
you have a much larger reach. That's what
going viral used to be like. Now it
only happens for seemingly fake things like the
boy bands of of of yesteryear, where we
go, oh, these well, some people were like,
these bands are great. Oh, turns out they're
manufactured by some 8 70 year old man
who's a creep. You know? And that's kinda

(19:41):
what part we're in now with social media
where these and I'm not saying everyone knows
that's happening, but my point is that right
now, you see it often. And back to
Rachel, the point was she had a really
great video that was exploding.
Shut it down. I'm willing to bet you
that had that gone further, because it was
getting a lot of attention at the right
time at the right moment of the conversation,
she would've been ex just propelled further than
she already is.

(20:03):
You guys can come to your own conclusions
about it. Derek had a great interview with
David Icke, which you know his content goes
crazy.
And he says, you may recall this channel
was deleted because it already was in 2020
and expect expect to be taken down again
soon. Because the point was it got deleted,
and as we've seen in the past, it
kind of randomly comes back sometimes, like, high
impact flicks has had that many times, and
probably gonna be taken down now again. Any

(20:23):
case, that's how it goes.
Now, let's get into the main topic, in
my opinion of today.
Shout out to any news network who posted
this, could draw my attention to it about
the person who collapsed.
Georgia is joking they wrote and this is
our,
I'll I'll come back to this actually, my
tweet sharing what I saw this for the
first time. But thank you Andy for pointing
this out. So here's the show we just

(20:45):
did. This was on October 2nd. So as
always, I like to point out demonstrating our
value that there's very few people even now
who are talking about this story. And I
think this is
I mean, if we're gonna talk about East
Palestine, this one's far more
damaging in the context of what the real
risk, I think, was is.
So as always, this is, I think, it's
not because it's partisan or because I think
it's gonna get clicks. It's because I felt

(21:05):
it was important.
And right now, clearly, this is not what
everyone's talking about. So I just wanna make
you if you're looking for people that are
willing to cover what they think is important
even though it's not the big topic of
the day, well, TLAB is for you. Major
dioxin risk in Georgia, East Palestine 2 point
o? Well, turns out I was correct. And
I was that was my opinion at the
time. And it that was based on the
site the stud the research that I looked

(21:26):
at
and the science.
And turns out, as Scott c Smith has
just tested, that we're in this realm yet
again.
Now this, by the way, the same one
I used for today, this one, these 2
are from, that's Lebanon, that's,
which one was that? Maybe Gaza? I forget.
What they're either Lebanon or Gaza. This one
was from Georgia.
Now as Ethan Jordan says in his video

(21:47):
with Scott, we'll play in a second. Yeah.
The sure does look like he's Palestine, but
it's not. And I've already bumped up against
this. Where we're talking about this on Twitter,
and I I by pointing out, oh my
god. Look at this. It's crazy. And somebody
underneath goes, yeah. Tim Pool covered this last
year.
Well,
he must be a magician seeing as how
this happened a few days ago. My point
is that people are conflating with Palestine

(22:08):
because it looks like that. And maybe that's
kinda the point, and maybe that's how why
the corporate media seems to be ignoring this
entirely.
But as Brad Nitz pointed out on the
second when I covered this,
I've been digging through the air quality data
from last night. He said he found chlorine
22 times higher than action level. So that
alone
and this is this is the day after,
and so that alone, mind you, is wildly

(22:30):
dangerous. And we're talking about the test that
they showed you saying something different.
I think that's pretty concerning. The point is
that that's just the chlorine,
the unburned chlorine, which I'm gonna get to
again is the lee well,
far less dangerous than the risk of dioxin
because of this being burned alongside the stuff
that was in there.
So I just wanna make sure that's clear.

(22:50):
The problem already was dangerous, and they know
this, guys. I wanna prove it to you
for the 45th thousandth time, but for however
many times we've covered this, showing the the
article from 1990
or 95, talking about the risk and how
dangerous it was. Now, we know it's everywhere,
and they didn't do anything.
Now, here we are yet again. And I
think the point is that they know they
don't well, they don't know what to do.

(23:11):
As they'll tell you, as we've discussed, they
don't know how to get rid of this.
Even the highest burning incinerator we have at
the highest temperature, the study show that they
still argue it does not get d removed.
And that's why I made the point during
East Palestine that they were knowingly moving it
and only spreading dioxins all over the East
Coast.
And I'm right. I mean, I I proven
this. I've spoken to them on the phone,
I spoke to clear, Clear Harbors, which was

(23:33):
the place that they were
using. Or, excuse me, Clean Harbors. As Scott
Smith himself pointed out, it's sort of a,
you know, there's sort of a
a big open secret there.
Clean Harbors Waste Disposal Ohio scandal. I have
I have them on the phone twice, in
each in multiple locations, asking them, are you
able to deal with dioxins or PFAS? No.

(23:54):
And the point is that they're going to
places where they're burying it, and they know
that they can't deal with either because neither
are actually able to be removed for the
most part based on the studies that I've
seen. And even the ones that they're going
to don't even have an incinerator for most
cases, so it's not even beginning to get
removed.
So my point is
here we are with the position again
where just the the chlorine itself being out

(24:15):
there is dangerous, but how much was burned
and how much is going around because of
the chlorine, which creates dioxin,
which TCDD being the most dangerous, which is
what we're discussing, it goes
states across.
And I'll show you the science. I'll show
you how obvious it is and how they
know that and how they're actively back to
the point I was making is that they
don't know how to handle it. Because if

(24:36):
you can't remove it mean, I'll just let's
make this really clear in my opening point.
Sort of.
I think that they have a problem that
they've identified.
And that's PFAS is the same conversation where
they go, okay.
We see it's a problem, but we don't
know how to do anything about it.
So we could start stop I mean, really,
what they should've done immediately was stop any

(24:56):
production that creates this. Boom. Just like that.
No more chlorine. No more anything. We can't
allow it. It's killing us. Or PFAS, but
they don't.
They just keep letting it happen while they
investigate for 30, 40 years, which is whatever
you wanna frame it as. My point is
if you know it's a problem, if you
recognize dioxins are everywhere and you don't know
how to solve that problem, what do dishonest
people do? Well, they just stop talking about
it. Governments who are more

(25:18):
like with North Carolina, more interested in bureaucracy,
liability
removal,
and money.
So we've jumped forward decades where this problem's
existed. No one talks about it, even though
it continues to get worse. Then things like
this happen in East Palestine, they're like, dioxin?
And either they don't know, which is even
more terrifying, or they do and they're not
telling you that. So I think they're at
a point where they just are covering their

(25:39):
butts.
Almost just indefinitely.
And I I don't think that's necessarily, like,
EPA making that choice. I think that's a
bigger problem. This is all my opinion. My
point is that we know it's there, they
know it's there, and for decades they've been
talking about it, or, you know, know it's
there and they have talked about it, and
we're at a point where it's not even
being brought up anymore. I mean, we could
talk about glyphosate or any number of these
problems. They know this stuff is gonna exist,

(26:00):
and no one seems to do anything to
actually even try to reduce that problem.
So, I think if you're in a position
where there is no solution,
an honest entity would own that, would say,
Well, we need to find a way to
rectify that.
But if they do that, then they're on
the hot seat. How'd you let it happen?
What are you gonna do about it? And
knowing that there's no solution, why would you
be the like, think about, like, Afghanistan, for

(26:21):
example. The multiple administrations that knew that it
was not that well, at least the narrative
goes now. I think it was much deeper
than that even in the moment. But they
pretended, well, we knew we weren't gonna win.
And yet we kept it going.
Right?
The or what did I say? I'm talking
about Vietnam. I don't know if Afghanistan. It's
the same point, by the way. But Vietnam,
and they just kept kicking it down the

(26:42):
road. New administration.
Then that administration doesn't wanna be the one
to fail, so they kick it down the
road. Right? And the point is that ultimately,
they knew that they were only killing Americans
to just kinda save face for themselves immediately.
I think that's what we're dealing with. I
think we're in a position where they know
it's a problem, but they don't wanna be
the one. They don't wanna be the EPA
head or whoever it is to have to
address that, take the problem, make it their

(27:02):
own so they hide from it. And then
it becomes a common practice. And now we're
30 years down the rail and it's still
growing as a problem and we're not even
talking about it. That's what I think this
is all about. So he's testing and finding
22 times the level of chlorine in the
air on the second. K? And that's the
stuff that wasn't burned.
So let me include this so you get

(27:23):
that for the show.
Here is the study I showed. This is
an important one to just save. I this
is for the general conversation of dioxins. This
is my point about how they know this.
This goes back to 2001.
Chlorine,
combustion, and dioxins.
Does reducing chlorine in wastes decrease dioxin formation
in waste incinerators?
Now the basic point is,

(27:44):
yes.
Higher the chlorine, higher the dioxins. Lower the
chlorine, lower the dioxins.
Period.
So as I'll even have a play from
Scott c Smith, he says the same thing.
That's why vinyl chloride was the problem and
the idea being that you can see that
that is kind of the main issue for
creating dioxins.
Now it says, can, I'll just cut to

(28:04):
the chase for you.
I think it was at the bottom, maybe
it was the top.
Yeah, it's at the top.
Just trying to do it quick, I read
the I went through this in-depth in the
last show.
The the one here and the the one
we're showing Oh not that one, the first
one I showed when we talked about East
Palestine 2 point o. Well up here it
simply says,

(28:24):
since every molecule Make sure you read it
all the way through, It's important. But this
is the the crux right here. Since every
molecule of dioxin
contains 2 or more atoms of chlorine,
chlorine is an absolute necessity
for dioxin formation.
Therefore,
when no chlorine is present,
no dioxins are formed.

(28:44):
I mean, you just can't misunderstand that. And
if you when you read through it, it
becomes extremely clear. When you have a place
that's burning chlorine primarily,
it is the worst possible dioxin outcome.
Now in 2023,
many, many, many different things. I I have
this as well for you. You can look
through all just under the tab of dioxins.

(29:04):
All the things we talked about. Pretty predominantly
around East Palestine, now at that point anyway.
So this was one of the shows where
we reported dioxins in East Palestine, quote, 100
of times greater than the safe level. That's
according to people like Scott c Smith,
Texas A&M, like, 3 other independent testers. All
of which were challenging what the EPA said
and nobody oh, and consistently, mind mind you.

(29:25):
So So every independent group was seeing the
same thing and the EPA was, like, nope.
You're all wrong. No. They were lying, and
we now know that as a fact. But
no one got held accountable. What do you
know?
Usually because of partisan nonsense that hides the
bigger picture.
So in this, like this, for example, he
found on July second, up to 14,000
more dioxins in East Palestine homes in their

(29:46):
filters compared to the control.
That's not a typo.
14000
percent more.
Dioxins, the most dangerous thing on the planet.
TCDD specifically.
So
Jordan Sheraton had this discussion with him. This
was yesterday.
So let me play just the clip that
I put out. Make sure you watch the
whole thing. I mean, just full disclosure, I'm

(30:06):
not a big fan of Jordan for many
reasons. He does good work on some things,
but I think just I just wanna make
that clear. I think it's very partisan, very
subjective in a lot of ways, and I
think I think most people in partisan angles
are. That doesn't mean I think this is
bad work. I think this is well, for
the most part, well done. So let me
play you what Scott was saying, which I
think is the real part to pluck out

(30:27):
of this. As the so he's well, I'll
let us speak. So he came back. His
testing is in the process of here's what
he had to say.
Everything from there you go. No. That's not
East Palestine. It looks similar though. That's Conyers,
Georgia.
And it looks
like a
it looks like a nuclear explosion or something

(30:47):
like that.
This is chlorine gas,
and frankly, it's not just chlorine gas in
the air.
And that's where Scott comes in. Now see,
I don't I wouldn't I mean,
Scott doesn't seem to solve that. I don't
think that's chlorine gas. That's a fire. Right?
And so you've got chlorine in some cases
that is dissipating,
but I I I don't as I understand

(31:08):
the situation, I don't believe that there are,
like, open containers, like, hissing out into the
air. Like, I don't think that's the reality.
Like, based on what Scott said, but I
could be wrong. I think at the end
of the day, the point even then is
about the fact that it's burning and combusting
into dioxins.
Right? Just I think so I said so
that's clear.
Joining me now, Scott Smith. He's an independent,

(31:29):
tester. He has tested,
for chemical contamination.
I think he's been to East Palestine over
30 times.
You've been to Flint and many other areas.
Not your first rodeo,
but you I mean, I don't wanna speak
for you, but you were just down there
testing,
and you're feeling a little sick.
That's right. I can tell you,

(31:50):
you know, I had my nose cauterized in
East Palestine. I volunteer to do this and
go in and help communities, so I'm not
complaining. But I can really tell when there's
something without my testing results. And,
Something was just, 48 hours ago, there were
people coughing up blood passing out. And I
was, you know, around the perimeter and the
people around me, we all had intense headaches
and,

(32:11):
48 hours ago. So there was talking about
7th.
Right? So, like, a week later,
and people are passing out, having blood and
coughing up blood.
I mean, this is pretty terrifying stuff, and
I'm not trying to hype this or downplay
it. This is this is what what he's
seeing as the independent tester. And mind you,
and, be skeptical of everybody all the time.

(32:32):
That's the way we have to engage with
stuff today. My point is best east Palestine,
everything he showed you was correct. He has
been proven right. Well, I mean, it's it's
he was simply testing independently and showing these
results, and it was lining up with every
independent tester and the reality of looking back
as we were screaming in the moment, he
is correct. So keep that in mind. And
he has a very great track record going
back to many different disasters where he has

(32:53):
tested. He's telling you that people are sick.
How is it possible that that's not in
the conversation? Where's all the partisan screamers from
the time his palestine was going on? Don't
you care about the reality of this story?
The point is until it becomes something that
they can use, many of them are gonna
ignore it. Now that's one part of it.
Where's the mainstream media? Well, we know. They
only engage with stories, I think, and by
and large, when there's some interest there for

(33:13):
the power structure.
So if nobody's getting attention on this, then
I think that's why no one's talking about
it. But that's not how it's supposed to
work, is it? People of Georgia care about
this. The whole country should care about this.
But I guess in this broken e media
sphere,
until the mainstream alternative media, the mainstream media
decide to use this and usually destroy the
process, it doesn't really get focused on. And

(33:35):
this is our problem, so we need to
change that. You, individually, can make choices to
change that.
Now I got a sore throat, so,
I really feel for these people.
Fortunately for me, I'm, you know, back where
I live and and have relatively fresh air.
But these people that are continuing to be
inundated by the ongoing plume, I really feel

(33:55):
for them. Also, I want to give a
special acknowledgment to
Kenny Johnson, who died. He was the supervisor
for the,
water for the county,
for the water and the soil. And he
was speaking out
almost like a whistleblower, and he has been
talking about this. So these are 2 deaths
too many. As you know, Courtney Miller was

(34:17):
the first one to reach out to me
in East Palestine,
and she passed away.
I don't know if you guys knew that.
Right? So already we have, you know, and
more there's more than one by the way,
but this is somebody who he spoke to
early in this conversation, who is raising the
alarm about how it was dangerous in East
Palestine, she's now dead.
I'm sure they'll chalk it up to something
else.
Recently and,

(34:38):
just my heart and thoughts go out to
Kenny Johnson's family. You know, I've been a
whistleblower with EPA region 5 in East Palestine.
We're gonna play the stuff from Kenny in
a second. He's the one that died after
giving the press conference. I'll give everyone the
benefit of the doubt. And I wanna put
things in perspective.
Now quickly on the screen, you're looking at
3 I I believe the I think Madeline

(34:58):
at the top might be with status quo.
I the bottom 2 for sure are
people from the location.
I only say that because I didn't really
get I I
just quickly point is that there are people
from the location who are experiencing
illness. That's the important part. And really the
the what I I'm just telling you who's
in the video. The point is really just
what Scott is saying. Well, from the scientific

(35:20):
team today
that it has been verified that at least
£12,000,000
of chlorine compound
has burned.
12,000,000.
Listen to that again.
Chlorine compound.
Right?
That it has been verified that at least
£12,000,000

(35:41):
has burned.
£12,000,000
of chlorine content.
The the next parts were connects. Could be
as high as 20,000,000.
We don't know yet. East Palestine, as bad
as it was, was £2,000,000
of chlorine compounds.
£2,000,000
of chlorine compound in East Palestine,

(36:01):
potentially up to £20,000,000.
Think about that.
So
he's
low estimate telling you 6 times the risk.
Now not the guarantee, mind you, because even
in these Palestine, his point was it's there's
different areas or have different concentration.
Right? And the point that it's based on
all sorts of different factors, but it's there

(36:22):
and people are still suffering to this day.
Now what were there in the stage of
the long term issues? The cancers, the I
mean, all sorts of stuff that we've already
talked about that this will cause long term
effects. It's the most dangerous thing in the
planet. Don't forget, even the US government tried
to use TCDD to assassinate a Ukrainian leader
decades ago. It's a public story.
And and so let's pretend like they don't

(36:42):
know. They've gone as far as to try
to weaponize it, but they don't know how
to deal with it.
Wild.
£20,000,000
of chlorine.
He didn't say content. What did he just
say? Chlorine
compounds.
So the bottom line is the risk is
there.
And he saw he saw a burn, not
just present. And if we know that the
higher the chlorine, the higher the toxin risk,

(37:05):
this is there's not a question here, guys.
It's a question of how much.
I think it's pretty clear this is worse
than East Palestine. Including Bylcholpi, if you'd say.
And in and in £2,000,000,
at least £12,000,000
has burned.
Could be as high as 20,000,000.
We don't know yet. East Palestine, as bad
as it was, was £2,000,000

(37:25):
of chlorine compounds,
including bile chloride, PVC. And in and in
English, to dummies like me, what does that
mean to the average person? 12 years Here's
what it means. The products of incomplete combustion,
dioxins,
and
cancer causing benzene compounds that are called polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons.
I, Jordan, we were both involved in So

(37:46):
what what he said there in this report,
he'll kind of touch on it again, but
the un the burn compounds. So so so
what the pallets, the styrofoam,
the the paper trash, all these things in
there burned with it, ma ex
it it increases the risk. And that's what
they when he when he unfinished burn con
that's like the idea of nor of North
or East Palestine with the vinyl chloride.

(38:06):
The choice,
The, actually, the lie from Allan Shaw to
the vault the chi the the the fire
chief
about how they that well, rather, the lie
threw a mission by not telling him it
was treated by vinyl chloride, which is a
fact.
That their experts told him it's treated, so
it's likely not going to explode. He happened
to leave that out of the conversation.

(38:26):
And then pressured as he himself has admitted,
the fire chief felt railroaded, no pun intended,
to drive this forward to blow it up
with no air control despite calling it a
controlled burn, which caused maximized
the risk.
That's all the black smoke you saw. If
it was controlled, you wouldn't have seen it
would have been the the the black smoke
shows you a lack of air control. Having

(38:47):
a controlled burn means controlling the air.
So his point is that when we see
it now and all the burn pallets and
everything else around it, that is what maximized
this problem. Now so far, this to me
just seems like
a a a a random thing. Even though
we know multiple times in the past, this
one place has already had fires like this.
So it could be that, or it could
be some kind of engineered problem over a

(39:08):
long period of time. Right? My point is
we should care about that. We should investigate
that, but let's focus first on
dealing with this long term real
major problem of health risks because your government
doesn't care to even talk about what this
is and why it's happening.
In 12 Here's what it means. The products
of incomplete combustion,
dioxins,

(39:29):
and cancer causing benzene compounds that are called
polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons.
I, Jordan, we were both involved in this.
I never thought there'd be an event that
is now 6 times greater of chlorine compound
burn. And it's worse than that. All these
chlorine compounds were sitting on plastic pallet. Mhmm.

(39:49):
Yeah. And burning plastics,
obviously, for the same reason is one of
the main issues creating dioxins, just specifically. That's
why if anything you read about this burning
plastics is always referenced as one of the
main issues. And so it's like, if you
like I said, if you sat down and
tried to plan out what would be the
worst dioxin disaster you could create, it seems
like this fits that bill.

(40:10):
And there was styrene
and styrofoam in the building. Mhmm. And all
of these all of these compounds, when they
burn, create dioxins
and a whole host of other chemicals,
irrespective of the phosgene and all the other
gas. And this is, from Shana. Shana was
the first one. She reached out to me
and tested.
She's the one on the bottom right. I

(40:31):
I'm see you see this right here? This
is a retainer. This is off this is
what you see there. That's polystyrene,
and this is picked up from her yard.
This came So it landed in her yard.
Right? So that's local though. But the point
is with the ash, like we saw with
East Palestine, which we're already seeing,
counties away.
The smoke went dip very far.

(40:54):
That means this
that that means wherever that went, there's a
vaccine risk. And we saw from East Palestine
as they admitted only, I don't know, maybe
months
ago that it went states across.
As we were telling you at the time,
and they called us conspiracy theorists.
As usual, that's how that works. Basically,
it's, right now, 20 to 30 miles away,
this was an invasion of people's airspace.

(41:16):
You see that, Ash? I kept a lot
of stress and this this got delivered to
the lab on Tuesday.
That is the polystyrene
or styrene foam. It is a scientific fact
when that burns, it gives off dioxins.
And unfortunately,
the EPA said, we're only testing for asbestos.
There's no well, of course, there's no asbestos.

(41:37):
And you did And here we are again.
Now, this is the point that I'm making
more than anything.
They know this is a problem. If Scott
knows that, they know that. If I know
that, they know that.
So they come to a plant where they
know chlorine is the primary combusted
product.
And then they know there are plastics and
styrofoam and all. They know this because it's

(41:58):
publicly listed when you read the basic article
about it.
And they don't test for dioxin? How else
do you read that?
You know why they don't? Because they don't
want to find it. Because if they do,
then they're forced in the same position I
was describing. They don't
know what to do about it. So every
step they then take is criminal.
Or unless they were to go, time out,
we don't know what to do so we

(42:19):
can't touch anything. And then the person who
is in charge gets lambasted.
Of course, they'll lay at his feet. Everyone
will blame him because the government is the
real responsible party in all this. They've ignored
this forever.
Now just wait. I if you haven't seen
me talk about this before, I'm gonna do
bring up 3 things that will blow your
mind, showing you that even CNN was talking
about this back in 1995,

(42:40):
talking about the fast food you were eating.
And the wrappers had a 150 times the
safe level of dioxin,
and they never talked about it again. Ne
just put it to bed, and here we
are.
It's everywhere.
It just ties in. You can't find what
you don't look for. Here And and quickly,
let's say he said this this was like

(43:00):
his mantra, and he said this last time.
Because what they do, they look for VOCs.
They look for the average chemicals. Then or
then, like, then, okay, we go look for
asbestos, which won't be there. Or we test
the top of the water even though as
everybody knew at the time it was going
to be the because of the chemicals we're
discussing in this Palestine that it would have
been a bot. Like, they Scott proved this,
as well as every independent

(43:20):
expert who went
along or before or after him.
They were deliberately testing in locations and styles
that they knew would minimize what it looked
like.
This is not a their debate. That's what
happened. And they were exposed for it. Now,
we have to recognize not only do they
drag their feet in even talking about the
problem, but when they're forced to look at
the problem, they make sure they're testing for
the least amount. Does that sound like any

(43:42):
in any stretch of the imagination, a group
that's trying to keep people safe? No. It's
a group that's trying to keep its liability
down.
So these if you wanna call it CAPTURY
Agencies,
I'm never the one that's gonna I I
genuinely think there are people in all these
agencies that believe they're doing the right thing.
I don't mean making those decisions. I mean
the lower like with USAID, for example. Right?
Where you have people that believe they're helping

(44:03):
people and feeding people. But the reality is
the entity is being used for much more
dark and terrible things, as we've shown many
times over the years.
Same thing here. I guarantee there are people
in the EPA that don't think that's what
they're doing and don't even know. But if
they were to find out, some of them
resign. That happens almost every time, and nobody
seems to bat an eye. FDA, CDC, EPA,
they're resigning left and right because they're lying

(44:25):
and they're cheating. They're covering up rape, and
they're doing the
it just keeps going.
We go again.
How is it that it's okay to go
to work? It's okay for kids to go
to school in surrounding areas? And
this is a lot of stress. And this
this got to is a scientific fact when
that fruit burns,
it gives off dioxins.

(44:46):
And unfortunately,
the EPA said, we're only testing for asbestos.
There's no well, of course, there's no asbestos.
And it it just ties in, you can't
find what you don't look for. Here we
go again.
Here we go again. Here we go again.
Did that. It's okay to go to work.
It's okay for kids to go to school
in surrounding areas. It's okay to do things,

(45:09):
during the day,
but there's a shelter in place at night.
Do they Well, first of all, there's not
one person on my scientific team that agrees
with that, and I don't have any answer
for what it says. It's totally illogical.
Mhmm. And the It's the illusion of safety.
That's all it is.
Right? They're allowing you to go out while
they know the dioxin risk is ever present.

(45:30):
It's not dissipating at night. It's staying because
they're not even pretending they're dealing with dioxins
at this point. Alleged reason is that it
Or they're not they're pretending they're not. Right?
However that sounds correct. Night, the plume descends
towards the ground. But from my experience of
being on the ground I was on the
ground Friday through Tuesday.
The smell is there. The plume is there.

(45:50):
And just yesterday,
you saw the video I sent you. They
said, well, there's dangerous gases. You can't approach.
But yet,
the contractor
that was trying to stop us was illegally
saying the police,
would arrest us, which was a complete bluff
and was illegal and wrong. The police admitted
they could not stop a private business owner

(46:11):
from accessing property to test. Yeah. So if
if it's so when you wanna try to
get to ground 0 to do independent testing
with with a property owner that wants you
there, it's unsafe to enter the area.
But yet then it's okay to go to
work. It's okay to go to school. Right.
So they're using that as a it's it's
the deception.
Right. So they're pretending that they care about

(46:32):
how safe he is when they don't want
him to test, but, of course, that very
same moment, kids are out there playing and
going about their day or it's
it's unnerving to see how obvious this all
is. So make sure you watch it. There's
plenty more they discuss.
So, the point from there
is yesterday,
the Georgian official who was speaking about this,

(46:53):
and I'll play you what he said,
gave his gave his presentation about how this
is an ongoing problem, then even hints at
the idea that this is a cover up.
And has losing his breath while he's talking,
and then then dies shortly after.
Now, again, I don't wanna jump to conclusions.
We probably know he took took 17 COVID
shots. But I don't know

(47:14):
there are plenty of things it could be
or just something not connected. But I find
it really interesting and alarming that while people
are coughing up blood, having headaches, and passing
out, that a guy who is literally dealing
with this at ground zero level and talking
about the problem
dies in front of us.
So Scott was the one that, posted this.
I saw as well. Georgia county official dies
after giving testimony about the hazardous chemical plant

(47:35):
fire. And I said that just basically that
almost no one at this point was covering
the story. And Scott said yeah. I I
said, I hope Scott's gonna be doing dioxin
testing. And he says, yes. I'm doing dioxin
testing and more. So I just reached I
also DM ed him, and I said, hey.
Let's connect once that's done. I really wanna
see what the results are. I get the
sense it's gonna be monumental.
So here was the article he referenced. This

(47:56):
is from yesterday. Now it says Georgia County
official died after he collapsed at the state
capitol following testimony he gave during a hearing
about the chemical plant fire. In the hours
after the fire, hazardous plumes spread into neighboring
counties. So just even this general reporting shows
you that this is without question
going
county to county, state to state just like
East Palestine. And I'm gonna prove you with

(48:16):
the science that shows you that this goes
even from CNN's casual reporting back in 9
till 1995,
that when it burns,
it goes 1,000
of miles.
1,000.
There's no way around it. Okay? That's the
reality of this. I'll show you a peer
reviewed study and I'll show you the reporting.
And I'll show the reality that if it
burns like this and goes into the air,

(48:38):
it goes very much further than they want
you to think today.
If they even address it, mind you.
According to the Georgia house democratic caucus, it
says, the 62 year old Johnson, quote, complained
of shortness of breath and subsequently collapsed in
the hallway after the meeting. He later died
that day.
This guy, hustle, b I t c h,
says the he's the one that posted these

(48:59):
I'm not familiar with his work, but he
posted the, the clips. So let's take a
look at those.
He's saying
the guy was in in oh, you'll hear
it yourself. The guy was saying I've asked
for federal criminal investigation
twice.
So you could also wonder how why what
you should, but don't jump to conclusions whether
this was something darker than that. Maybe it
was taken out for trying to expose something
bigger. I mean, if we're pretending today, like,

(49:19):
this might this was funny. We if you
just say, it's certainly possible that the government
killed him, let's say, or somebody in power
or a corporate entity,
you can almost feel the corporate media. And
even some of the mainstream roles are kind
of looking at you like you're just so
stupid. Like, what you're so naive. That's just
conspiracy theory.
So we don't admit that people have been
killed for corporate power or government assassinations or

(49:41):
like, it just needs to demonstrate fee for
you a willful disregard
of what is obviously possible. We're not saying
I like, as you know, I would never
say I know that without proving it, but
of course it's possible.
Just like geoengineering
is possible. Just like everything else we've talked
about, yet they still disregard those things as
crazy conspiracy theory. I mean, everybody
everywhere seems to know that today. But I

(50:03):
just think it's interesting to point out that
we have to acknowledge that your government's capable
of these things, and if you can't do
that, then there's a bigger problem here. But
so here's the leaked video.
At least that's how he's reporting it. I've
I've only ever seen it from his post,
so, like, we'll find you guys can look
into it further, but the videos are from
his discussion.
And I'll just he's just pointing out what
he said, so I'll just play them for

(50:23):
you. Now let listen. Now you can hear
him struggling his breathing.
It's a little bit low, but try to
listen to to, you know, the the meat
of what he's trying to say here.
I am
the state
representative for Solid Water Conservation.
I'm the 1st black man to be elected
to this position
since 1937
since the creation

(50:43):
of solid water.
I,
worked in a field like this before.
And,
because of my breath.
But this company is called a CLD.
What I mean is is a chemical oxygen
demand.
They treat their own water.
And the chemicals that they keep on

(51:05):
property,
sulfuric acid.
M I d k.
That would kill you.
Everybody in Rockville County need to,
go to the doctor and, check out your
blood
for a toxin. Okay. So right there, that
is not your

(51:25):
who else is saying that?
Did you ever did you hear anybody even
suggest that at East Palestine or anywhere? What
again shows you, this is what an honest
person looks like, I would argue.
Right? Somebody who's going, go get yourself tested.
In East Palestine, they were turning people away
from the hospital, and we proved this on
the show from trying to test their blood
from toxins. And they were told they weren't
supposed to. That's what the doctors were I

(51:46):
mean, it's so obvious. So here he is
telling you, everybody in this county needs to
get their blood tested for for toxins. And
I don't even know if he needs because
of the fire or just because of this
plant being there. Because that is kind of
his larger point. This plant is an ongoing
problem.
But just reflect on how wild that is.
Where's the local media? Where where is anybody?
Anywhere
making this a big as big acknowledging this

(52:08):
is as big as it actually clearly is.
Please get that out.
Please just send me out every time,
at least
every other month.
So
please,
next thing is I asked for a federal
criminal investigation.

(52:28):
This is not the first time.
This is the second
time. All around. Major guy. I've been asking
for this 3 weeks ago to send it
to also,
send it to one of, and congressman hand
Go to the names. Right? So you can
remember who hasn't been doing their jobs. He's
been asking for an investigation of an obvious

(52:50):
problem.
And or even I mean, we should be
investigating right now about the dealing with this.
But remember the names. If you're local, look
into it.
Both of the offs all they also said
is we're gonna do an inquiry and have
the DOJ get involved.
I had the HOA
on the on the phone calls with me.

(53:10):
3 weeks later Mister Johnson, what are you
talking about? Okay.
3 weeks later,
what we have?
Fire.
But they say it's an accident.
That's really important. K. So there's been multiple
fires.
He is obviously at least insinuating
it's possible that this was not an accident.

(53:30):
Right? We're right right before people are at
least in, you know, discussing an investigation with
the DOJ, a fire happens.
Think about that. At I mean, this guy
is investing this or investing he's he's still
in the know.
I think it's very valuable. Like, it is
still his opinion,
but I find that to be important.
Where's the MSDS?
Material safety data sheets is what he's talking

(53:52):
about. Yes.
Where's the material safety data sheet? Oh, there
you go. Where's the layout of the company?
Mhmm. Why why the chemicals were stored in
the dry place?
Why they didn't call
out foam truck like they did in 2004?
But they put water on the chemical that

(54:14):
realized. Give you research.
How are we gonna solve this?
We need a federal criminal investigation.
So all the things he laid out, he
suggest he's he he he's claiming clearly that
those things were done either deliberately or with,
you know, mouth incompetence. And either way, there's
somebody needs to be held accountable.
Why they do it like this? Why didn't

(54:35):
they pull this out like last time? Right?
And the I think the the original suggestion
that the fire
happens, coincidentally,
right after this all begins, you know, in
a way covering up potential evidence. Where's the
sheets? Where's the information?
Consider that.
EPA region 4 is the worst
region

(54:55):
in the United States.
Look it up.
Yes. Rockdale County been out of federal compliance
Wow. For decades.
Wow.
They've been out of compliance for 4 decades.
See, this is my point.
If the EPA was doing its job, this
kind of stuff wouldn't be just resting for
40 years out of compliance, meaning that they're

(55:16):
doing unsafe things. They're not in compliance with
what's supposed to be safe. And even then,
we know that their arbitrary lines are half
the time not safe at all, just what
they've decided on. And yet, even then, they're
not even meeting it, which shows you I
think even they recognize they're arbitrary.
But that shows you incompetence or criminality. There's
no way around
it. I've been fighting for 6 years.

(55:37):
They put a guy on the ballot illegally.
He wasn't an incumbent.
So I'm pulling out warrants now.
Yeah. The governor's scared.
I've been fighting a bit sad that that
company was gonna explode.
No one listened.
Mhmm.
We got

(55:59):
Remember, this guy died after walking out of
this room.
To lose this company out of this community.
Yes. Alright. You didn't have that. Today.
Now we got
we got to lose this company out of
this community.
Yes. Alright. You didn't have that. Today.
Now we got one other

(56:19):
Alright. Now we got one other company that's
in there. The same way. It's called Pratt,
p r a t t.
My 8:8
o'clock at night,
you can smell the chlorine.
Being out of 1.7
tons
of recycled
paper.

(56:39):
I'm the only one that inspected.
We don't have enough inspectors
to go in these companies. Yes. They know
that. Yes. And they're not qualified. Right. They
know that.
What I'm angry at too is that
$850,000,000
of our taxes

(57:00):
went to this company
to kill us.
Yes.
Wow.
Y'all in charge.
Y'all elected official.
We need a federal
criminal investigation.
Thank you. Thank you, mister Johnson.
Man,
it's hard to tell.

(57:21):
Right? I mean, obviously, the way he seems
like he's not suffering from something else at
least immediate wise. I mean, he did very
shortly after this died.
And based on every account, it was right
on the hallway, I guess.
So,
it certainly could be because of what's going
on in the area. It could be because
of any number of other things. You can
decide for yourself.
Now here's the Latin Times. Georgia environmental boss

(57:42):
shockingly dies during meeting
on toxic chemical fire after complaining about shortness
of breath.
There's one other point added. It's just simply
saying again that he died shortly after complaining
he was having trouble breathing.
And at the end, it simply adds that
before collapsing, he expressed desire for the federal
criminal investigation into which, I guess, we've saw
on the video. Just more more reporting on
the general thing. Now here here is what

(58:03):
I want you to just I mean, realistically,
I could do a 4 hour video just
on the docs, and which, by the way,
there's probably
20 hours of content on TLAB just about
that overlap with East Palestine, and then diving
deep on dioxins in general. Multiple peer reviewed
studies, the reality of what's going on.
These are the 2 things I wanna bring
up today as I've already brought up this
one recently.
Because it just shows you the main point
I'm trying to make, that the risk I

(58:24):
think we've already clearly established with the peer
reviewed science and an independent expert and the
general knowledge about these things that this is
real. That the chlorine
and the byproducts are without a question creating
dioxins, and we saw the massive burn. We
saw it go multiple state. We see this.
This is a risk.
By by Scott c Smith's accounts, it is

(58:44):
potentially 6 times more risky, more risk of
dioxin than East Palestine.
So my point is that it can spread
very far when this kind of situation happens.
Now this is a study I've shown many
times. This is from 2,000.
It's a US government study or rather it's
a from specifically the North American Commission for

(59:04):
Environmental
Corporation.
But it's this is a a a official
study done in regard to the long range
air transport of dioxins, specifically
from North American sources,
which are everywhere,
to ecologically
vulnerable receptors in Nunavut Arctic Canada.
So to break this down quickly, and I

(59:25):
recommend you read the whole thing.
You've got arc you got arc with,
Inuit women
in Arctic Canada,
whether or not a dioxin source within 200
miles in any direction, according to the study,
who are finding dioxins at dangerous levels for
their children in their breast milk.

(59:46):
And they've tracked it all the way back
to North American sources.
They did this study in the year 2000.
So maybe they should have done a study
for, I don't know, how it's affecting people
in the county over from those sources.
Nah. Let's focus on the study in Canada
that shows you how far it can go
and then never make the logical jump to
how about the people living right next door?
How about the people in the state over?

(01:00:07):
Because you know what, guys? If this is
all the way in breast milk and women
in Canada,
it is in yours too.
And they don't want you to know that.
And that is the point they're making about
the bigger breadth of this problem when they
know they can't solve it. So I guess
we just give up. Hey. And you know
what? We can make some money on the
other end with cancer drugs. Right? Or whatever
else we deal with. I mean, I'm obviously

(01:00:28):
being facetious, but I think I I genuinely
mean what I'm saying.
It's terrifying that this is so obvious.
So they found it in their breast milk.
It is dangerous, and they traced it all
the way back to North American sources, meaning
the wind
is traveling. The the dioxin risk is traveling
on the wind all the way up to
the Nunavut Arctic Canada
to breast milk in women when there's not

(01:00:50):
a dioxin source in 200 miles in any
direction. So let's not pretend this is not
going to travel all the way across the
United States It has been for years. So
all I'm saying is that the risk immediately
is the rapid increase of the actions that
I probable I argue we're probably already all
dealing with. But that's why the immediate problem
is the risk. So we may ask, you
know, I don't know why one in every

(01:01:10):
2 people in this country end up with
cancer at some point in their life, which
is pretty much the general statistic right now.
Maybe that's why. Oh, maybe on top of
the glyphosate
and
the PFAS and the endocrine disrupting chemicals and
the shocks they're driving down your throat and
all of those things. But the point is
that you see an increase on top of
that shocking increase
in places like East Palestine, in places like

(01:01:31):
Georgia where this is happening.
This one will probably blow your mind, and
it should. First of all, you guys have
watched this show many times. How many times
have I talked about this?
Going back to east Palestine coverage. I mean,
this is probably in every one of these
documents right here. I've talked about this CNN
article many times.
And it was live. Up until
I mean, actually, I don't know. I should've

(01:01:52):
gone I should've I should've looked back the
way back machine.
But it's been live in the as of
the last time I covered this, which is
probably, I don't know, 6 months ago, a
year ago.
It's now gone.
Also an important point to recognize that this
is part of where we're going. I mean,
guys, this, how does this not add to
the exact reality of this? Why would CNN
delete this article? It's been up since 1995.

(01:02:13):
It was up. It was live. Now, today,
I looked for it because I was gonna
talk about it again. Gone.
Uh-oh.
It's been deleted.
Yeah. Let's pretend like they're just clearing out
all is that what they normally do? Journalists
just clear out their old writings?
You know? No. They keep these things for
obvious reasons on c whatever platform.
But now it's gone.
Now you could argue that it has to

(01:02:35):
do with Georgia. It might very well be
that they're trying to hide because you'll see
why this is so relevant. Or it could
just be that they know that TLAB's been
pointing to it many times. Or whatever you
wanna think. Either way, it's now suddenly gone.
The title of this from 1995,
dioxins may be creating larger problems down the
road.
Gee. How right they were.

(01:02:55):
July 1st, July 2nd, 1995. CNN, environmental unit.
From the mo and this is an interview.
It says, from the moment you get out
of bed, chlorine
is part of your life.
Starting out great.
But there are up there are potentially harmful
side effects from our chlorine use.
One of those side effects is a group

(01:03:15):
of unwanted chemicals called dioxins.
As dioxins become airborne, it travels
thousands of miles away. That's casual. Right? As
if we all know. Funny how that's not
being discussed right now. Or in East Palestine.
You know, in a place where they've acknowledged
there's a dioxin risk. And they know that
there was a massive uncontrolled fire. Weird how
they never mentioned the thousands of miles that

(01:03:37):
it can travel. Right?
Certainly possible that we've been from administration to
administration, we've just gotten more and more incompetent,
hired less and less intelligent people, and maybe
they just actually don't know today. Doesn't change
the fact that they're responsible for it and
that they should. But I don't believe that.
I think this is a straight up cover
up.
But it says, as dioxins become airborne, travels
1,000 of miles away. Dioxin end, ends up

(01:03:58):
in animals or fish,
where it's stored in their fatty tissue.
And when we eat these things, dioxin move
into our fat. I guess you say dioxin
not dioxins.
Interesting, but maybe that's just how they wrote
it then.
So the point is that this has been
traveling since I mean, obviously, if it's a
problem there, which we'll get to the numbers,

(01:04:18):
it is today. Because they didn't change, it
actually got worse.
But how long has this been building in
the fats of the animals we're eating, which
we can then not get past? Or in
your fat that you trans that translates to
your family.
This is my point. This is such a
lar it it becomes such a large I
mean, there's actually a point to make here.
That if you can create a ubiquitous reality,

(01:04:39):
that then there's no longer a problem. Right?
Yeah. Glyphosate's literally in the air you're breathing.
It's in the clothes you're wearing. So what
are they gonna do?
Right.
I actually think there's some logic to that
possibility, that this is something that they've allowed
to become so prolific that it just becomes
background noise. I could just, well, it's everywhere.
So what are you talking about?
First for you to decide. But you realize

(01:05:00):
what I'm saying is that we should care
about this, and that they know it's there
and they don't.
It says the environ the EPA
says chlorine like chlorine compounds like dioxin can
cause serious health problems. Funny how they just
forgot about that
right after this.
And researchers say
it's everywhere.

(01:05:21):
1995.
To see how widespread it is,
CNN commissioned a study
on just on fast food specifically.
Doctor Arnold Sector, a dioxin specialist,
not even really existed. Funny. Gathered several of
our favorites and and sent them to the

(01:05:41):
lab.
It says from reading what you found on
the fast food, the doses of dioxins in
the hamburger,
chicken, and pizza
are already
higher than what the EPA says is safe?
That's the question, really. I didn't phrase say
it like that, but that's what he's asking.
And he goes on to say, right.
Big Mac or Pizza Hut personal pan supreme

(01:06:03):
or 3 pieces of Kentucky fried chicken gives
us about 8
to a 150
times more dioxins
than the EPA feels will be a reasonable
level. And quite frankly, if you actually listen
to real experts, there is no reasonable level.
It's dangerous at any context.
It just amount it just depends on because
the point is it doesn't go away. It
builds up in your body. It didn't they

(01:06:24):
can't even seem to get rid of it
in any context.
But if in 1995, it was potentially a
150 times the safe level in the fast
food that they're still pushing on people, why
didn't they do something about that?
It's a good question.
It says the restaurants can't help it. And
here's the point. Dioxins
dioxin has had years to build up in

(01:06:44):
the food chain.
So even right then, you'd be like, pause.
Stop. We have to immediately pa like, if
they or the way they make this big
deal about, like, the illusion of carbon and
climate change even though we are destroying the
planet. Acting like, we have to stop it
now. Otherwise, we're never going to see that
is a real situation where you should have
done something like that. And I'm not saying
the government should be
pushing themselves into your life because of it.

(01:07:05):
I'm talking about the way that they're dealing
with it. Because it's not the Joe at
the corner at his house burning his barbecue
that's really making his problem. It's the government
cough covering it up. It's the government and
the corporations that they allowed to do so.
So they need to take actions in their
lives and their their influence in the companies
and the and the regulations to stop this
from being a problem back then.

(01:07:27):
Instead, they did nothing. In fact, it seems
like they reduced restrictions. As Trump, we saw,
more than anybody,
all about big business. Right? Despite him framing
himself the other way. The the point is
it's not left or right. Every administration going
back as far as you could look, this
has been a problem that's been ignored. And
in fact, allowed to get worse. But it's
built up in the food chain. My point,
what I was making there, is that if

(01:07:47):
we know that was happening in 1995, well,
that should've been, like, a major, major red
flag alerts going off. We can't do this,
so we're all gonna be dying when we're
45.
I'm I'm hyperbolic to a degree, but we
that's if you're in this moment in 1995
and you realize it's been building up in
the food chain for years, and it's already
a 100 and 50 times worse than it
should be,
I mean, what does that sound like to

(01:08:08):
you? That should've been
a slam on the brakes. We need to
do something now.
They didn't. It says that's why the EPA
wants to change the standards, which they didn't
do. It recently said even lower levels of
dioxin may hurt us.
Yeah. Damn well know that today. Very, very
much so. And it says by weakening, guess
what, our immunities

(01:08:28):
or attacking our reproductive system. Isn't it funny
how everything seems to do that? So they
allowed a problem to get worse that makes
you sicker and makes you less reproductive.
What do you know?
Now if we're talking about weakening your immune
system, well, damn well everything they're doing to
you seems to aim in that direction. So
hard not to see that as some kind
of a coordinated effort, but you can decide
for yourself.

(01:08:50):
And it goes on to say through though
though EPA's review board thinks the lower levels
are too restrictive
think about that. Others say they're not tough
enough. So even then, EPA was like, well,
we don't know. Maybe it's too restrictive.
Okay. So we're finding a 150 times the
level you say is safe in fast food,
and you think maybe it's too restricted?

(01:09:11):
I mean, has the EPA ever cared about
us? Probably not.
And it says dioxins,
in the doses we're talking about, will not
kill us.
I mean, you and I eat big macs
and we're alive.
Yeah. But even the big mac itself is
the same for you. Maybe alive, but you're
not doing well. But it says, what they
do is increase the rate of illness in

(01:09:33):
a population.
I mean, I know like, what's funny is
people out there,
it's a logical connection to the bigger picture
we're talking about. The injections, the the the
GMO. I mean, whether you wanna think it's
a deliberate depopulation or whatever you think in
your mind, this fits into it. The obvious
reality that this is something that explicitly has
been identified to increase the illness in the

(01:09:54):
population amongst many other things, cancers, all sorts
of stuff.
And they knew it and they just went,
we're gonna look over here instead.
It says, and you found basically what you
that you and you found basically that
what you were seeing in the infants
was also showing up in the 4 year

(01:10:14):
olds.
He says, right. In both cases, the children
who were exposed to higher levels of PCB,
which is a lower level of dioxin, TCDD
being the highest,
in utero so it so they're they're pregnant,
and they get exposed to these, which are
everywhere.
Food, it's everywhere.
Performed more poorly in tests of short term

(01:10:35):
memory.
So we just talked about fluoride and lowering
the IQ. It's funny how these things that
are being allowed seem to be doing the
same things to us. Making you stupider, making
you sicker.
What was the other part?
Oh, and reproductive.
Right? So
dumber,
sicker, less productive. Less, you know, less

(01:10:57):
offspring.
I mean, that fits that's like a conspiracy
theory bull's eye. I don't mean that derogatory
way. I mean, legitimately concerned. Now that that
might I mean, the point being is that
I don't know if we everyone's got a
different opinion on whether some of these things
are legitimate or if it's a byproduct or
some faction of power structures want this and
others don't. The bottom line is if anyone
cares about these things in any context, this

(01:11:18):
should be a major asp addition to these
conversations, and it feels like nobody wants to
talk about this.
Now it says what they do know is
that children were impacted,
and it happened in the fetal stage.
But let's forget about it for 40 years.
Right?
It's that kind of study, it says, more

(01:11:38):
evidence,
which has led some scientists to push for
the phase out of chlorinated compounds
in general. And that's what I'm talking about.
So we actually have the experts in the
field going, let's get the hell let's get
rid of these things. And they go, no.
And act like they care what the scientists
say or what the experts want.
We should not be using these things.

(01:11:59):
Now look. Every there's always gonna be an
argument from a Trump fair character, somebody in
that field who would clearly act like they're
fighting for you but then lean into big
business, would argue that we can't do that.
There's people and businesses and lives and jobs.
And you know what? I don't care.
I'm done pretending like we need to lean
into these broken systems. Yes. There will be
negative consequences. But the point is if we
really wanna make an argument about how these

(01:12:20):
things might be, you know, lessening the human
species' lifespan,
then maybe we should so let's I mean,
then then roll out some programs to make
the bottom line is I'm not gonna be
the one filling the gaps.
If we recognize these problems, like with GMOs
or just a poison, for example, you wouldn't
go, well, the people using the poison, the
ones making the poison, and the ones shipping
the poison, well, they have jobs and so

(01:12:41):
your kid probably has to eat it then
just to make sure they have their livelihoods.
The point is this is dangerous stuff.
So we should be leaning into these things
more. But even though let's even say on
a slower roll. How about we acknowledge in
1995 that chlorine is a problem, and then
start phasing these things out? You see, none
of this happens.
And then we get to this
buildup
where it's like, we need this now where

(01:13:01):
everyone's gonna die and all of a sudden
we get this conversation about how well then,
what about the job. It's the same thing
with the military.
Well, PFAS is a problem. Well, national security.
Well, I don't care anymore. I don't care
about what you claim and the lies you're
putting forward. You allowed this to be a
problem, now you're using your own forever wars
to justify why we can't stop making PFAS?
That's a real thing.
But it says, but the chlorine industry says

(01:13:24):
the proof just isn't there. Oh, really?
The industry who has an in an interest
in maintaining the problem doesn't see the proof.
It's sort of like the very groups invested
with vaccines going, we don't see where their
evidence is despite it being everywhere. And it
says and that you can't convict
an entire class of chemicals based on a
few bad ones. We see it's the problem.
It's not about a few of the chemicals.

(01:13:45):
It's about the byproduct of chlorinated products in
general.
Now it says a commission formed by the
US and Canada to study pollution in the
Great Lakes agrees. It says and the Great
Lakes apparently are just rife with chemicals, the
testing, and they're talking about up here, the
presence of chlorine off their charts. And it
says it said in, quote, the weight of
evidence is there

(01:14:07):
that we are, through these discharges,
affected the way humans are developing.
Guys, that's a commission formed by the US
and Canada to literally study the Great Lakes,
and they're telling you that the evidence was
there for this problem.
And that it's affecting human development in 1995.
And it says no one knows what's being
put out there.

(01:14:28):
Very few of those are being tested. Almost
none of them being tested for anything other
than cancer.
So we don't know what they're doing to
our skid we don't know what we're doing
to ourselves still. And it's talking about the
different chemicals that are being put out in
the in dumped, being used.
So like like we're saying, like oh well
cancer, well, it's a isn't it a carcinogen?
Nothing else is being tested for. And they're
acting like that's enough because you're not asking

(01:14:49):
for more.
That's not what they're supposed to be doing
and you damn well know that.
Then it says lot wildlife
ex experts across the nation have blamed these
chemicals for birth defects,
thinning eggshells, and god knows what else. Maybe
the bees, everything else we've seen. All of
these things are confounding. Glyphosate's part of that
problem too. Right? They compound the problem.

(01:15:10):
It says government tests show the waters off
South Central Florida
are heavy with chlorinated
pesticides.
Florida.
Fishermen like Walter,
can Kandrashoff
have have watched their catches dwindle and wondered
why. So now we're talking about just a
food problem or a, you know, fishing in

(01:15:32):
general and the byproducts of that. Now it
says they wonder,
but who's doing much about it?
Who is looking at the environmental end of
it?
Where is all this coming from?
Nobody wants to give us answers.
And that's where it got left.
Collins finishes by saying, it's not so much
that no one wants to give us the

(01:15:52):
answers, it's just that they're so hard so
hard to get.
We're talking about 100 of chemicals.
And the chlorine industry believes each one should
be tested and judged separately because that works
in their interest, doesn't it? That's not necessarily
wrong, but my point is it's been
what? I mean, right, I keep saying I
mean, the reason I'm saying 40 is because
of how long the problem's been going on.
But, okay, so we're we're talking

(01:16:15):
30 years.
So, 30 years go by.
Okay?
Did they do this?
Are they testing every there's not, there's not
enough chlorine products to have not finished that
by now.
My point is it didn't happen. So the
chlorine industry gets to kick this down the
road, and then an, ministra administration changes and
we're looking different directions and suddenly no one

(01:16:36):
cares anymore.
Because they don't actually care.
So it's they're not hard to get answers.
Why? Because no one's caring to look.
And it says a process that would take
years of research and 1,000,000 of dollars had
they actually finished it. They didn't.
It says, at issue is whether our health
can stand the weight.
Well, again, 30 years later, here we are.

(01:16:58):
CNN was clearly telling you, there's a risk,
we should care about this, no one's caring
to look into it, the risk is already
ever present, and we don't even get the
answers. And I guess we don't know whether
we'll be able to wait it out. Well,
turns out we're finding out.
I genuinely think this is a monumental story.
I guess we'll have to wait and see
if the mainstream alternative media cares to give
you part of it.
But if you wanna look at the dioxin

(01:17:19):
risk of the past, or rather the our
coverage of it, 3 East Palestine and up
to today, I'll include this link for you
to check out.
Don't forget, CNN has deleted this article. As
of, I don't know, recently.
I think that says a lot.
Wild.
Now we're gonna get into a few more
things.
I mean, it's funny. I just I feel

(01:17:40):
like that right there needs to be the
only thing. I just feel like that's such
an important story. But I am gonna go
over a couple more things, and I may
just cut it short in general today. But
I'm I'm gonna at least talk about the
Jeffrey Lufredo story because I think that's important
and we put it in the title today.
But I guess I'm trying to stress that
this story itself needs to be
broadened. Give this reach, put it in front
of people. I don't care whether you share

(01:18:01):
this article, this website, or this t TLIVE
content or not. Get this story in front
of people.
I want this to be discussed. I want
this to be forced into conversation,
and I want this to be dealt with.
I want people to acknowledge that there's a
dioxin risk that's seemingly everywhere in this country.
And how about from there, we roll that
into everything else? Everything. PFAS, glyphosate, endocrine chemicals,

(01:18:21):
all the stuff that's being dumped on you,
and they act like it's not a problem.
And then and then from there, even more.
Let's take let's test them all simultaneously and
see what they're doing. Because see these things
matter.
Even with the injections they give you, they
the the MMR for example, they don't ever
and they still have not ever tested them
alongside each other.
Why does that ever make sense to anybody?

(01:18:42):
It's obviously possible that chemicals can react differently,
or that 2 things with each other can
cause another effect that we haven't thought about,
and they just don't care. I think it's
the same point. I think they know that
there's an issue there, and they know if
they test, they're gonna find it, and they
don't wanna have to deal with it. I
think that's more of how our governments work,
governments,
than people realize.
And it's a scary thing to think about.

(01:19:04):
Now there's a couple of things I was
gonna point out here. This was just the,
this was about the
oh, you know what? I think I did
pull some off for time. Well, okay. So
this is about the point
of fluoride in this first point. The next
one of the things is about myocarditis.
There's just 2 things I wanted to make
sure you saw in the conversation.
So mine was that so Laura Logan says,

(01:19:25):
holy guacamole. They finally admitted it.
Which again, I'm gonna argue I am kind
of I mean, Laura sends her content to
me on Twitter. Hey, share this for me.
I'm like, why does nobody who even in
our, you know, kind of in our circles,
how do you not know that we've been
talking about this for a year?
It I whether it's by design or not
or by intention or not, the point is
that we live in a controlled media ecosphere.

(01:19:46):
That's frustrating.
But it says, so what else do they
force you to admit? And then, of course,
shares a screenshot of a tweet instead of,
you know, Derek's excellent work breaking down all
the source material and interviewing the people that
are doing it. You know, Michael Conant from
Fan who just won this case. But now
here's a screenshot and, oh my god, this
thing's happening.
October 8th. And I'm not even going after
Laura. I'm just saying it frustrates me that
there's that exists.

(01:20:08):
Because if it didn't, well, everybody would know
this by now, and this would've be a
very different conversation. Even though they've already won,
in multiple's minds, this doesn't even exist because
of that. And so my point was not
just that, but the the screenshot that says
this is undercover news. Well, as I said,
if only we didn't live in an entirely
controlled media info environment. It's only undercover if

(01:20:28):
you only consume info from mainstream media, mainstream
alternative media sources.
We and many others have been breaking this
down for years. I just wanna point this
out. Because this is and, you know, obviously,
the point is about the fact that people
need to see this work,
largely because if we don't get more reach
on these topics, whether dioxins or fluoride,
it doesn't really matter.

(01:20:49):
This is the case they win.
But if no one cares to push, the
government will let it drift away.
Every side of it, guys. Just like I
just showed you. There's pressure I mean, there
was a moment when there was all this
pressure about PFAS. Remember? Forever chemicals? And they
just drifted away because of a new administration,
because of a new major story. And then
it just gets ignored because they go, well,
they're not pushing. There's no feet to our

(01:21:11):
fire, so let's just kick it down the
road. I don't wanna be the one that
has to deal with this. Because they don't
really care about you. They care about their
job. They care about their lobbying money. That's
what they care about. By and large, I
would argue, I hope I'm wrong.
But so make sure we push these things
out. Now here's an example of something that
you already well know. That Liz has been
breaking down for a long time, that my
myself been breaking down for a long time.
In fact, we got censored from Patreon

(01:21:33):
and others for this main topic.
Or actually, I think Patreon might have been
more so about I forget which one. Whether
it was myocarditis or it was the AstraZeneca.
I forget that blood on my mind these
days. But PayPal, who stole 1,000 of dollars
from us,
was one of the ones that censored us
for around these topics. And which is the
idea that these shots caused myocarditis.
No question.
Their own study showed you that, and yet

(01:21:54):
we still got censored for it. Her point
was, a study involving 1,700,000
children
has now found that myocarditis and pericarditis
only appeared in children who took the COVID
vaccines.
Not one unvaccinated child in the group suffered
from these heart related problems.
That's very important to understand. Oh, you know
what? I grabbed I've had 2

(01:22:14):
damn it. Oh, wait. Is this 1 I
had,
shoot.
I had multiple tweets I saved on this
and I pulled them off. I don't wanna
think I'll I'll include the actual study in
the show notes. I'm realizing right now that
they didn't, which drives me bananas. I shouldn't
even be sharing their tweets if they don't
share the link. That kills me. Anyway,

(01:22:34):
I will I'm gonna find it included for
you. My point is I I wanna make
sure I went to the I'll show you
the actual study. The point is though, this
is obviously real. Whether or not the study
found that, we've been proving this for years.
But I think it's important that now after
all this time later, they're simply going, yes.
The shot is deadly. Yes. It is showing
you that the study I'm talking about. Thank
you, Liz, for sharing everybody else, but I
wish you'd include the

(01:22:56):
link. The the shots they gave people were
immediately showing to give
massive problems. I mean, even though I just
recently showed it I've shared a clip from
a a military guy
who is again, he threw the they were
trying to remove him from his position because
he's showing you what their data showed. The
what is it? The DMED base? The the
the military part of it? Where they're showing
you a

(01:23:16):
hundreds hundreds of percent increase in myocarditis. I
mean, the mat the cover up is unreal.
And of course, that has to be overlapped
with the idea that Donald Trump still tells
you that it's safe.
This day, he's he's very
to this very moment, he is still arguing
that it's something he's proud of. That has
to drive people crazy.
There's no ignoring that.

(01:23:37):
So I wanna include this.
For a reason.
Alex, pointing at the same thing, says the
FDA
openly announced that the experimental COVID mRNA injections
would cause all sorts of problems in October
2020. Yeah. From the FDA thing, which we've
covered as well. And, again, this was
this is the least valuable part to show

(01:23:57):
you.
The point is this was an FDA discussion
where they were over they were going over
possible
effects.
Which, by the way, most of these things
are listed damn near everything. That's not to
say that those were there because we can
show you outside of a broad, overwrite reaching
FDA preliminary discussion, We're talking about the actual
side effects that we can prove. Now that's
that's not the end of the point. I

(01:24:18):
just wanna highlight it showing the screenshot will
actually probably mislead people for the larger reason
that this is real. Maybe that's by design.
I genuinely start to think that's what's going
on here. I've thought about that for a
long time. And I'll make a point about
that regarding the atrazine point.
But my point was
highlighting the reality of this predicted myocarditis in
children. Yes. We we all know this whether

(01:24:39):
Alex said it or not. My point is
this guy says if it wasn't for Alex,
I would've taken 900 boosters.
Which I don't understand because Alex Jones said
this was sugar water.
So let's talk about that.
Right? So what I'm trying to show you
here is the importance of recognizing that people
can just change their verse their narrative.
Right? And say, we knew and we told

(01:25:00):
you and Alex was right. Which seems to
be a unjustified thing that comes out a
lot around things that are said, but generally
everybody. Or in this case, something that he
said the opposite of.
Here's David Knight pointing out who worked with
him until he recognized that he was deceiving
people and he moved away from that as
a lot of people seem to have. Church
Green Media,
Jason Bermas.
The point is, Trump's shot is harmless sugar

(01:25:21):
water,
he said in this discussion.
Here's what he said.
Or the aluminum
to trigger that. And so, yeah, Trump's looking
at basically sugar water for folks. Can we
take a little bit of a attenuated, you
know, microwaved or radiated

(01:25:44):
COVID deal? Absolutely.
COVID's already everywhere anyways.
Trump's looking at basically sugar water for folks.
Can we take a little bit of a
attenuated, you know, microwaved or radiated?
And so, yeah, Trump's looking at basically sugar
water for folks.
So it's basically sugar water. Let's get down
to, what is necessary to talk. Well, you

(01:26:06):
watch the full clip. David Knight does great
work. I've interviewed him a couple times.
He's br- he's the one that shared this
clip.
So, of course, you could change your mind.
Of course, you could recognize you were wrong,
but I have yet to see that. I
haven't seen this been acknowledged as, you know
what? I was incorrect. I thought it was
sugar water. I was wrong. Now, just because
you point out it's dangerous today does not
hide the fact that you were telling people

(01:26:26):
that it was safe.
Sugar water, which by the way, there was
no different vaccine. That's that's just like the
left telling you it's a new vaccine because
they're in charge.
This is the 2 party illusion, ladies and
gentlemen. The mainstream alternative media, as David Icke
would call it, and they, whether they know
it or not, are deceiving you. That's my
opinion. Please decide for yourself. But if we're
gonna pretend that this was something that we
were all calling out and he saved my

(01:26:47):
life because well, that seems pretty contradictory.
I just wanna point that out. It's it's
important to recognize the consistency of the conversation
because a lot of people in the partisanship
more than anything love to jump on the
next thing and act like he was right,
when in reality, you can clearly see that
there was a bit more nuance to it.
So here's a conversation going into North Carolina.

(01:27:07):
Now this is just a clip of of
Arnaud Bertrand highlighting what,
drop site news or rather what, Lindsey Graham
was saying. Now this goes into Israel and
so on and we're not gonna get into
that in this point anyway. I wanna just
highlight one thing he said in this, which
I won't play the clip of, but Arnad
points out the irony of Lindsey Graham calling
Palestinians
radicalized
when his state, North South Carolina,

(01:27:29):
is currently flooded
and is experiencing another historic hurricane.
But he, instead, chooses to go to Israel
to support a masonic project of reshaping the
Middle East via mass murder.
So, of course, I know the republicans rather
specifically the patriots love to look at him
like he's a rhino, but he is a
leader he's a leader in the republican movement.

(01:27:51):
He is trying to tell you that you
are less important than Israel's war.
I mean, pretty much openly acknowledging the fact
that that we need to care more about
Israel. He said that essentially in the last
interview we had where people are suffering here,
but we need to support Israel.
So too are the rest of them, by
the way, despite what you may be telling
yourself.

(01:28:13):
So quickly on the point of of of
what's going on in general, in Florida, Carolinas,
the
the
that you know, I tried to there was
another state, you know, whatever the
southeast.
The point I wanna make here if you
I've been bringing this up a lot,
is the idea that weather modification is obviously

(01:28:35):
a real story. And I just wanna put
I mean, I guess I've said this last
time too, but I'm gonna include some some
links and some clips and great work done
by Grace as well as Derek
just for you to take the time to
watch through. Because it's it's one of these
topics. It's like it's like debating
that the Internet work is is in existence.
So the point is that you can prove
this stuff as easy as you can prove
anything.
Along with a lot of other things. Like,

(01:28:56):
the fact that they're covering up toxins, for
example. But I just think it's important that
we acknowledge. It's like I said the other
day, we're done pretending accepting their b s.
We gotta stop playing these games where people
because they we they're not in in no
or in partisanship or they just pretend like
these things, we need to stop engaging with
these ridiculous ideas.
Here's really Graceful who does an amazing 8
minute clip on the reality of these things.

(01:29:17):
She goes, next time someone tries to tell
you that government cannot and would not manipulate
the weather, show them this. Now I'm in
no way suggesting that we can prove
that happened in in what just went down.
I I my my research, I don't think
I can prove that. That's where I that's
where I'll leave it if I don't think
I can prove it. If you've got something
more
than conjecture and how it works and possibilities,
which I'm right there with you, send it

(01:29:38):
to me. I've yet I've people keep sending
me stuff where they're like, well, here you
go. And I'm like, well, that's what it
is still showing you up to the point
like, for example, with Dane Wigginton, which I
think is one of the most ex important,
which I'll show you again, even gets used
here,
is that this is something that could be
done. But until we can prove that they
had released these in this area before that

(01:29:59):
or even long enough before it where it
would have been relevant, that I don't think
we can prove that it immediately happened there.
Even though I would argue it seems likely.
So I think that's an important line for
us to draw. It's not it's not like,
I wouldn't even call that irritatingly objective. That's
just being objective. Like, we have to acknowledge
that we can't actually do it. Now, again,
if you have something, I really do wanna
see it. That's not the point is we

(01:30:20):
know this stuff is real. We see the
patents. Again, Dane Wigginton is a part a
person I will I usually point to because
his work highlighting the patents, the real scientific
research, he's got great work. But this is
just a quick clip that really proves to
you that they've done this more than once.
Derek wrote this back in 2017,
examining the history of the US government experimentation
experimentation
with controlling hurricanes specifically

(01:30:41):
for almost a 100 years. This was for
anti media when that exists. Too bad it's
gone now.
So this is not up for debate, in
my opinion.
I shouldn't even have to add that quite
frankly because we're talking about government patents and
research and scientific studies and an actual real
world operations.
But I think that's the important line. I
just wanna make sure we know that. So
if you people are debating that because I
see it online right now. Make sure they

(01:31:02):
recognize that reality but be objective about it
and say, but I'm not saying we can
prove it happened here. And well, if you
think that. But here's the proof that it
can. And if then you got people that
are going that's not even possible, well, you
know where their minds at. They they they've
been brainwashed by the word conspiracy theory, the
the term, and they won't even accept things
that are being proven in front of them
because they're supposed to not do that.

(01:31:22):
Like they're in kindergarten.
But here's some stuff that's been going around
that I think is important.
So I've already got community noted by Twitter.
This is the problem with this, because right
now there is a lot of malfeasance happening.
As there seems to be every time. I
mean, I I just got done
griping about the whole thing that's been going
on for decades, about how they don't care

(01:31:43):
about your health and they've been they've been
willing to do these things, ignore things, do
things to you for their own interest.
Just people in power.
So let's not pretend like I'm not willing
to consider how real these things can get.
But it matters that we can prove these
things and it matters whether it's subjective, whether
it's partisan, whether it's just a complete fabrication,
or whether you don't do your due diligence

(01:32:03):
when somebody you know or like or lean
in with shares something that works in that
same way.
Now those are all just general points before
we even get into the script. The holes
are all happening across Twitter. We all know
that. Every partisan topic, it's just overwhelmed
with people making things up, with people dumping
false narratives into it, people con connecting conjecture
and making it a fact and jumping on
back of that and 45 narratives later were

(01:32:25):
built on some new thing. And they had
a right to do that. That's called free
speech.
That's the important point to make. This right
here, even though it seems to be false,
he has a right to say it even
if he knew it was false. That's free
speech. But the reality is that we need
to be responsible enough to highlight this, to
call it out,
and to make sure that we individually because

(01:32:45):
that's all we can really control, our own
personal actions and our own personal objective
perspective,
that we don't do that. That we look
at the and if you well, even if
like, even if let's just say you blindly
trust me, which you shouldn't. Question everybody.
And I put out a story that I'm
convinced about, and I say there's no question,
you should still go check it for yourself.
I could be wrong. I could be lying.

(01:33:07):
That's how the reality works in this. I've
been there's plenty of times I've been wrong.
So the point is that we need to
make sure we're doing our own due diligence,
and if you look into it, despite the
certainty of the statement, and you can't feel
that you prove it, then you'd put it
down.
Put it aside, make a note, reference it
in the passing, but don't say we know
this. You know? Or do whatever you want.
But I'm saying if you wanna be responsible

(01:33:28):
about it, that's how we should be doing
this. So Health Ranger says, incoming intel, which
I don't know what that means or where
it came from. No source material. But it
says FEMA is waiving, quote, ungodly amounts of
money at private security firms right now,
begging for security contractors to station at Florida
to prevent Floridians returning to their homes and
businesses after the storm hits. Now to be

(01:33:48):
re to be clear,
again, the reality of the broader point is
always every is this, yes, they're stopping people
from going back. Yes, they're stopping people from
helping other people. Yes, they are stopping donations
that are not approved list. Those things are
not up for debate. As I've said, we
just went over the last show. They've happened
in every disaster that I've seen in living
memory.
Goes back a long way. Multiple administrations left

(01:34:09):
and right.
So, to our to the statement, this is
happening, already been I'll go to the information
that shows you this seems to be an
untrue.
It seems be kind of like broadly scooping
in things that we already generally know are
happening and making it out to be that
FEMA's being bribed or as we'll go forward.
It says the evacuation orders are to push
people out of Florida and keep them out.

(01:34:30):
Reportedly, Delta Force personnel advising FEMA at the
top, devising denial of area enforcement plans, which
will be enforced at gunpoint if required. I
mean, I don't we're all who knows where
else this is coming from? I'm told
FEMA is practically panicked to get enough armed
personnel on-site, anticipating a tremendous amount of resistance
from displaced people who want to return their
homes to salvage what they can.

(01:34:50):
And this is I mean, you see what
you can understand why this would be pretty
irresponsible,
almost driving violent action if this isn't happening.
And it says this is the next set
step up step
up the escalation ladder as the federal government
wages war against the American people. Now that's
what you're getting from the Alex Jones of
the world.
The government's waging war on you. Now I
would argue that's not actually that far off.

(01:35:12):
But to frame it as
as opposed to them taking advantage of something
or just in a broad sense not caring
about you, but deliberately waging an ongoing war
of just trying to kill you, which I
don't know how else you read that. The
hurricane was designed as I'll show you. It's
right here anyway. I'll come back to it.

(01:35:33):
The government is no longer trying to hide.
They are now killing us out in the
open, Alex says.
Referencing just the weather wars.
I mean, certainly possible. Right? As we just
said. But do we not realize how kind
of ridiculous that is? Like, so you're telling
me the government,
who has just
ability to do any number of things to
our water, to our food, or just to

(01:35:53):
execute people in all sorts of undiscoverable ways.
You're go we're gonna manufacture
hort hurricanes
in hopes that they kill people in the
most abstract and clumsy way?
Peep I mean, certainly possible. I just think
that seems a little bit abstract to argue
that that's what we're seeing. They just deliberately
but you know what it does do? It
gets people freaked out. And it gets people

(01:36:15):
angry. And it gets you clicks and shares.
That's what I think.
Even though, obviously, I would point out how
the government is deliberately
doing things for its benefit at your expense,
everywhere you look. Even going into the level
of questioning the possibility of depopulation.
My point though is even if you wanna
say that that is absolutely what's happening, why
would you argue that it would be like,

(01:36:36):
let's create a hurricane that hits this one
spot. And and then maybe because lithium or
maybe over here in Irwin, Tennessee, we just
ignore because each got equally destroyed, but there's
no lithium there.
And then on top of that, there are
plenty of people that were there that weren't
killed and people are so just, like, maximize
some suffering of a few, and that's where
you're gonna spend money. I mean, it just
doesn't have it has to logically make sense

(01:36:57):
for people. There has to be evidence.
It should, anyway.
I don't know. I just find it to
be pretty childish. But it goes on to
say, in the same point here, that's my
point. Wage is war against the American people
as we saw FEMA carrying out in North
Carolina actively hindering rescue efforts to maximize starvation
and death. Now is that what happened?
I don't know. You could decide. But, yes,
they did hinder help like they've done every

(01:37:18):
time before, which that means if he's gonna
make that point, then so did the Trump
administration, so did the Obama. Well, yeah. But
see, we're only gonna pretend it's Biden right
now because that's politically advantageous.
And was it to maximize starving and death?
I mean, could be. But it seems a
bit of an extreme jump, doesn't it? Could
we ask whether or not like, I would
argue same point. There are guaranteed to be

(01:37:38):
people involved with this effort even within the
government that don't come out there going, let's
get ready to murder all these people. Let's
do this to deliberately starve them. There's gonna
be somebody in this conversation that's gonna my
point is that I don't think it's as
clumsy and blunt as saying we're stopping you
because we want them to starve right there.
And even if that's a top down level
conversation, somebody at the very top made that
decision, which I would not deny is possible,

(01:37:59):
you have to acknowledge that there's no way
they know that.
So all it comes down to is a
subjective argument that gets it to it's the
most bombastic.
And it says to the people, do not
escalate.
Hold your ground peacefully and firmly. Which I'm
glad he said that. Because I'm not arguing
he's trying to drive people to violence, but
I I think the point is that the
sentiment could easily do that. And it says

(01:38:20):
that this looks a lot like January 6th
style trap, to revoke an insurrection and declare
martial law, cancel the election. Now this is
just seems like a desperate effort to jump
this over into the partisan conversation.
A January 6th style trap, in what way?
Other than the construct that you put over
this whole thing, which I don't think we
can prove, how in the world is this
a trap to drive only people that are

(01:38:42):
republicans, which there are more than just republicans
in this area, despite it being clearly republican
leaning?
I mean, you get I don't do I
really need to go this far?
Like, I feel like this is a waste.
It's incredible that people give credence to these
kind of things. Consider it, sure. But it's
just text on a on a on a
web and by the way, that's already been
shown at least community noted by the platform

(01:39:02):
that a lot of Republicans trust. This is
blatantly false, it says. This is nothing more
than a rumor that's already been refuted. This
is terrible and may change people
change peep how people plan to evacuate. Now
what's funny is somebody down here
says,
don't let the fact that this isn't true
prevent you from killing people with disinformation. If
someone doesn't leave their home because of this

(01:39:23):
tweet and dies in the storm, I want
you to be persecuted prosecuted
for manslaughter. Now here's an important point to
make.
I don't agree with that.
Now obviously, I would make the point that
if
his words that are not true led to
somebody being hurt, I would argue he's responsible
for that, but not in a legal sense.
Like, that that his words are what made
that possible.

(01:39:44):
However, just like fire in a theater, which
I will stand on the difficult side to
defend for most people it seems, that it's
not my responsibility that you take action.
It's my
free for it's my first amendment right
whether the constitution was written or not, god
given right, to be able to express my
thought, even if I'm lying, even if I'm
incorrect. Maybe I thought there was a fire.

(01:40:05):
The point is the fact that you irrationally
ran people down to get out of the
theater, that's your decision, your fault, even though
I'm the one that made it possible.
You know that makes sense, and we have
to start drawing these lines about where we
actually stand. Principles need to matter. So my
point is, obviously, this is ridiculous
because somebody else chose to stay in their
home, that's their conscious choice. Yes. Based on
information from this guy on Twitter, but maybe

(01:40:27):
they should reflect on where they're getting information
from. Maybe they should do a broader source
and look for different due do their due
diligence
is my point. It's on you individually out
there to make choices in your life based
on the information you choose to consume.
And even if they lied to you, that's
still your choice. We need to stop thinking
like this. I think I find this to
be very dangerous,

(01:40:47):
more so than lying, quite frankly. But
the point
oh, and, oh, the then this is one
that you updated. It simply says, in the
executive order issued by Ron DeSantis, it makes
no mention of enacting eminent domain blah blah
blah, which doesn't mean that what he said
isn't true. But I apparently, this does seem
to be completely constructed from
nothing. And here's an article, legal expert refute

(01:41:09):
rumor about FEMA aid and eminent domain.
Now the point is, obviously, it's not hard
to recognize the possibility that any cons concept
or context, like a lie in a situation,
the government will take advantage. That's what they
do.
The question is whether it was designed for
that purpose and whether they're pushing people back
in order to do that.
Right? It just it just becomes the same
story. Instead of focusing on the malfeasance and

(01:41:30):
the and allowing people to suffer, you turn
it into they're trying to steal your land
and trap you in January, which I'm I'll
happily consider. Those things are important.
But if we're only focusing there, guess what
happens?
They do it again next time.
If and you your objective out there, I
know you get the point. Consider the points,
consider the possibilities, but if we don't focus

(01:41:52):
on the main point,
the forest of the trees, guys, East Palestine
happens again because we're focusing on the other
narratives.
It's everywhere I look right now.
Now here's another one.
Amoo says, Elon Musk posted that one of
his SpaceX engineers on the ground in North
Carolina
is reporting
that FEMA is blocking the seizing and seizing

(01:42:12):
shipments of aid including Starlink receivers. Now it
appears that that's not the full picture. The
engineer reports that all Starlink shipments are on
hold until they can get an escort from
local first responders
to protect them from the FEMA enforcers.
Why is FEMA blocking aid shipments? Well, we
already went over this. So the the point
is that it's not you could argue it's
just about Starlink and you can make it
about Elon Musk in a partisan conversation, or

(01:42:34):
you could argue that it's the same thing
that happens in other past situations where if
they stop letting things come in that they
haven't approved,
Which I disagree with, and I think it's
shockingly criminal.
But my point is to make it only
about Musk and this seems to be dishonest.
But it says, why are they blocking deliveries
of Starlink receivers? We're gonna get into that
too. Doesn't it seems to be these are
not free by any stretch of imagination. And
quite frankly, it seems that Elon Musk has

(01:42:55):
taken advantage of people that are suffering from
a hurricane.
Sharp probably not gonna be what you wanna
hear if you pretend that he's saving the
day. Health writer says now FEMA's blocking Starlink
shipments to keep people offline. Now is that
why? You see my point? They've jumped from
they're blocking shipments, which includes Starlink, to they're
stopping this because they don't want you to
be online.
That is a subjective jump. Even if it's

(01:43:16):
true, even if that turns out to be
the case, how does he know that? Does
he know what they're thinking and feeling? Did
FEMA tell him what they're doing? No. That's
a subjective assumption based on what logically makes
sense to him. Still an assumption.
And it says, so they can't upload photos
and videos of the catastrophe.
FEMA is at war with the American people.
Yeah. Irresponsible.

(01:43:37):
So, what's actually going on? Well, again, what
even the tweet that he's quoting says, that
it was shipped larger aid shipments.
Right?
Why are they blocking aid shipments, which includes
Starlink? Aid including Starlink receivers. Well, we already
know, guys.
Not it's not justified, but it's because they
argue that they only accept ones for approved

(01:43:58):
areas, which we should fight to change because
that's absurd.
But why do we select a part of
it and make it only about Musk and
partisanship? Because that's what partisanship does.
Now, I don't trust any of these people,
let alone Musk, Trump, Buttigieg,
Kamala, they're all liars in my opinion. But
what's important to at least cons

(01:44:19):
consider, you know, because you wanna hear what
everyone is saying, not just one partisan side
is saying. Here's what the, the hypothetical other
side was saying. Buttigieg pushes back on Musk's
tweets about Starlink deliveries.
So it says and this is the update.
During an appearance on MSNBC this weekend, Buttigieg
suggested the issue was a lack of coordination
with the FFA. He says, quote, the FFA,
which I'll tell you right now seems to
be kind of my gut tells me that

(01:44:40):
doesn't seem seems like a dishonest answer. It
says the FFA was not closing down any
airspace,
but there is an issue with pilots who
were helping get Starlink equipment to where it
needed to be. Having the right information, we
worked with the local authorities and were able
to take care of it. So the update
shows you that they did continue.
So the story was a blip at a
moment, and again, this has been covered broadly,

(01:45:01):
I mean, this is the update of the
story.
That now it got stopped and then they
went.
Okay? So,
if you hype a moment where there's a
I figured the point.
That if they've now continued,
the story is still building that they're being
stopped. But it seems that they've already continued
forward.
And people that are gaining from making that
argument in the middle of the story don't

(01:45:22):
wanna continue the story. But as Buttigieg added
that he wanted to explain how FFA's temporary
flight restrictions work, given the confusion, even disinformation,
he says this is a process that has
been in for place for decades. And basically,
what happens is if you have a disaster
area, there's a lot of rescue operations going
on. Local airport, fire department, coast guard. Somebody
like that can request what's called the TFR.
It doesn't shut down the airspace, but it

(01:45:43):
increases the level of coordination that goes on
because you want to make sure that the
airspace is safe and they prevent the risk
of collisions. This thing same same I mean,
logically, it makes sense. That's the same thing
I make point I make every time.
This game of liability reduction, I mean, there's
a level of logic to it in some
context, but it's we when people are suffering
like this, especially in the beginning where there
were days where people weren't even being reached,

(01:46:06):
well, then I don't care about your liability.
Your your liability is more important to you
in that moment than it I mean, like
we said, there's a random guy. Look, I
I've got a helicopter. Let me fly some
in to save at least some of them.
And they were going, no.
And, again, not unit to Biden. It goes
back a long way. As he's saying right
here, this has been going on. And they'll
tell you, we'll shut it down, make it
more difficult. Now in a normal sense, that
doesn't seem to be that much of a

(01:46:27):
problem because most people would be doing you
know, involved in the process. But today,
when now we see that they're lacking in
their process,
people wanna help. Like with Harvey, it was
all over the place. People tried driving with
trucks and they were turning them away.
But it says, and so you hear them
and, well, this that
prevent the risk of collisions, they were saying.
And, of course, if you're going in there
as an independent pilot, well, that would change

(01:46:48):
the dynamic. But I'm still airing on the
side of that that they should be able
to. Having good samaritans with pilot licenses pitch
in is a great thing, he added. It's
just important that they coordinate and make sure
it's safe. So here's an interesting point to
make.
Couldn't it be possible that these people are
choosing to sort of circumvent the process because
they I've been convinced that they're all against
them? And I think maybe they are to
some degree. But now that creates the situation

(01:47:11):
where they're trying to circumvent the process and
that's why they can't get in. Kind of
a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't
it? Now the original story was the efforts
to ship Starling dishes to hurricane ravaged areas
in the US has been sparked accusations from
Musk that the government, including FEMA, was blocking
deliveries.
Prompted response from boot booty booty gag, who
reportedly spoke with Musk today and refute some

(01:47:32):
of the accusations.
The big issue is FEMA's actively blocking shipments,
he says.
Blocking them away. This was the important part
too. And I think I have Musk's tweet,
Maybe not. The point is the big issue
he says is FEMA's actually blocking the shipments
and seizing goods and services locally
and locking them away to state they are

(01:47:52):
their own.
Well, that's interesting because then I think because
the argument would be that they would then
deliver them but claim they did it. So
is it about getting it to them, or
is it about the fact that you want
the credit for it? Now I'm I'm not
saying I take this to face value.
I don't trust Buttigieg or the any me
media in general. But it's considering the other
side of the argument.
He says it's very real and scary how

(01:48:12):
much they have taken control to stop people
helping. I agree with that. It's crazy.
In response, Musk tweeted, the level of belligerent
government incompetence is staggering.
Musk then retweeted a screenshot from SpaceX engineer
who claimed that federal agencies were shutting down
the surrounding airspace to regulate private helicopters carrying
Starlink deliveries. Okay. So here's the point. Were
they shutting down Starlink deliveries? Or were they

(01:48:32):
shutting down airspace
to regulate private helicopters, who in this case
happened to have Starlink?
You see how framing
makes all the difference?
I mean, you get the point is obvious.
That it I mean, even if you disagree
with the logic, the point is that you
can understand why they would restrict airspace for
independent pilots while there's missions and people flying
in and out. And then especially when you

(01:48:53):
don't even engage the process, which I've already
seen many con many points of, where they're
kinda being hassled because they're not dealing with
them.
But then it becomes, well, okay. Well, you're
just flying many helicopters being stopped. Some of
them had Starlink.
And it seems that all of them were
in fact brought in. They just were wanting
to deliver themselves, and then they later brought
them anyway.
Yet, this whole story spins out that they're
shutting shutting this down because they don't want

(01:49:15):
them to be able to see anything, health
measure says.
Hopefully, you can recognize the the just blatant
dishonesty of that
assumption. And it says, we are pushing back
with Trump team as well to help, but
not looking good.
In response, Buttigieg tweeted back to deny that
the federal government is preventing StarLink deliveries. No
one is shutting down airspace and FFA. It
doesn't block legitimate rescue flight recovery flights. If

(01:49:35):
you're encountering a problem, give me a call.
So he followed up again by saying that
they weren't even shutting it down. They were
restricting it based on the missions, which we
already covered.
So again, the follow-up point being is that
now they've are taking them in themselves, which
they very well very well may keep them
and not deliver them either, which wouldn't surprise
me.

(01:49:57):
But overall,
I get I mean, I think it's clear
to see that the incant the the sub
the subjective assumption leading into partisan
self
the the advantageous narratives.
So here is the one I showed you
before. Weather wars and FEMA and equi equitable
mass murder.
I I mean, it's he I mean, if
you want a a face too hyperbolic,

(01:50:17):
it's right there. The war the government is
no longer trying to hide. They're trying to
kill us out in the open. And, of
course, he uses Dan Dan Wigginton's important work
here that doesn't say this is happening, but
here's a hype here's a way it can
and uses that to make these arguments, which
is usually how that works.
Now quick side note before we come back
to Starlink and and North Carolina.

(01:50:38):
The the vigil at Fox put this out,
and this was 2 days ago.
This is mind blowing, he says. The same
chemical Alex Jones warned was turning the frogs
gay is destroying testosterone levels in US population.
Now again, it's all about the framing, isn't
it?
We make a few points here.
Atrazine is an adequate disrupting chemical, like many

(01:50:58):
that are in this country and around the
world.
It's not that we just figured this out.
There's been plenty of studies that have pointed
this out. In fact, that's where this weird
frog's gay hype story that I am convinced
was designed to hide the story,
that's what he was talking about all that
time ago. So it's it's not the same
chemical that he said. He didn't say. He
was re he was looking at research and

(01:51:19):
studies and discussions
and pointed to it in a very ridiculous
way that then caused it to get dismissed.
Whether that was intentional or not. So my
point is all the way back then you
already had that evidence. So why is it
suddenly, Oh my god.
The thing he worried about is hurting everybody
because she says it on Joe Rogan? No.
Because it's a fact that we should all
know but the government doesn't care. And it

(01:51:40):
wasn't just atrazine or it wasn't just the
frogs. And we're gonna make this point quickly.
But it says adding insult to injury,
the testosterone depleting chemical is banned across Europe.
So too are a lot of things we
have in this country. The chemical is atrazine.
It says what what is atrazine? How does
it what is and and
how does it do this? Atrazine is a
widely used herbicide
sprayed on crops like corn and so yeah.

(01:52:02):
Like a lot of stuff. Like glyphosate, by
the way, which is also an endocrine disrupting
chemical. It disrupts hormone function by increasing the
activity of the enzyme called aero
er, aromatase,
which converts testosterone into estrogen.
In men, this can lead to con to
lead
can lead contribute to conditions like decreased muscle
mass and low libido and even firm feminization.

(01:52:24):
And we sprayed £70,000,000
of of this tasteless odorless chemical on our
food while it's illegal to do in Europe.
This is this is an old story, guys.
This is not even remotely new. There's other
I mean, even if there's a new study
today. Every single thing in this has been
old. I've I've talked about for decades.
Alright. I mean, I've talked about for at
least probably a decade, but it's been around
for decades.

(01:52:45):
Of course, this guy says watch the water.
Right. Because oh, and and then highlights the
same screenshot that everyone seems to be sharing
because see, that's that's how it works. Somebody
tapped into the partisan narrative, partisan sphere, dumps
the screenshot, then suddenly everyone's like, look at
this breaking story, even though Derek's been breaking
it down and proving this for a year
or more.
Controlled fear or don't want to engage people

(01:53:06):
not inside your circle. Either way, he says,
this is undercover news. Fluoride. They admitted it.
And he goes, watch the water.
Yeah. Because, you know, Stu Peters and that
ridiculous documentary about snake venom, that's what this
was about. Always trying to scoop it back
into the dumb stuff that's hiding everything that's
actually going on.
Now atrazine
is a real problem,
but so too are every other endocrine disrupting

(01:53:29):
chemical that is everywhere in your environment.
So my point in this conversation, guys,
is that this ridiculous framing of the story,
which I'll show you two examples of, I'm
convinced hid this from you. So quickly before
we go into these last clips,
the point is this.
The story was about runoff or chemicals used

(01:53:49):
in the in the byproduct of in the
environment around where these were being used.
And yes, there was a very real study
showing you that there was a clear hormonal
manipulation going on.
And it wasn't just frogs, and it wasn't
just atrazine, in the context of the bigger
discussion.
And yet,
Alex Jones dresses up as a frog, he
makes these skits, he screams that's turning the

(01:54:11):
frogs gay. And yes, I there's other conversations
he had which are less bombastic.
My point though is that that whether he
designed or not, it's not his it's not
his fault that people frame it out of
context. I mean, it would be if he's
doing it intentionally, but my point is that
then people look at that and go, fake
news.
Conspiracy theory. Because they're ignorant. Yes. But, nonetheless,
there's a game being played there. And I
think what we just described with what's, I

(01:54:33):
mean, everything we're talking about. Instead of highlighting
the provable reality of how they're hurting people
by not allowing donations to go through, and
the reason is because they wanna maximize or
minimize their liability
instead of turning turning them. They're they're starving
everybody immediately, and they wanna make sure you
can't access the Internet like these hyperbolic assumptions.
Even if they may turn out to be
true, you're missing the forest for the trees.

(01:54:54):
And I know this is gonna be lost
on partisan people that wanna pretend I'm hiding
something. The truth, you know if you're being
honest with yourselves is objectivity and that's not
it.
But so the story
got missed because people ignored that. And it
wasn't just the food turning. It was that
they were home manipulating
the endocrine disrupting chemicals as we now know
they do. We're manipulating the hormones of the
environment and the and the animals and the
environment.
The hormones of the environment and the and

(01:55:16):
the animals and the environment.
That should've been a monumental story. That should've
changed the way that this works going forward.
Instead,
it was a dumb story Alex talked about,
we all ignored it. Or at least how
they framed it. I think that's how this
is supposed to work. I'm not saying that's
okay. Or even that I it shouldn't be
that way. My point is that it is
happening that way, and that has to matter.

(01:55:37):
Here
is one of the clips. Or actually, first,
what's funny is I was only able to
find,
like, a remix of where he said this
for some weird reason. So this is some
like a music remix. I just wanna hear
the first way he says it, just the
first part, and then we'll go to a
clip he did. Feel like I'm putting chemicals
in the water that turn the freaking frog
gay. Do you understand
that? Turn the freaking frog. And then it

(01:55:59):
gets into, like, a little remix, like, techno
thing. But the point is, like, to say
it like that is ridiculous.
It's not turning them gay. It is changing
their hormones.
And maybe one of the one of the
possibilities is that it would kind of make
it the you know, like, even frogs in
general, by the way, in many cases already
have sort of, like, this ambiguous way that
they can change sex in some species. But
the point is that this causes a hormonal

(01:56:21):
manipulation.
And that that the same thing could be
done to your children. And this we made
these points about it, the and the articles
I'll show you next about the overlap with
the the transgender conversation. It's a very real
conversation. Peer reviewed science has found that endocrine
disrupting chemicals can cause that to be more
likely or the perception therein.
That's how we should cover that story. But

(01:56:42):
here's how we covered it, at least in
some of the more ridiculous versions.
Why are they lying about you and saying
mean things about you and trying to keep
you from the human children's water?
After all, you give people such gifts. Why
are they doing that, mister Atrazine?
Of course, my son.
You're absolutely right.
There's nothing wrong with Atrazine

(01:57:03):
and other carcinogens
in the water.
Give you this gift
that you now have.
A gift that's so special.
A gift that means
the end of the frogs.
Alright.

(01:57:23):
So, I think that makes the point in
of itself. The problem is that
that causes,
like, almost an obvious reaction.
Like some- it's it's so- somebody like in
in the way that I would frame this,
in my position, and I hope you guys
are the same. That we we have steeled
ourselves to be as objective as possible.
And so even with ridiculous things like that,
you're still trying to find the meat in

(01:57:44):
there. Where's the fact? Where's the information? Okay.
Most people aren't like that. Most people are
gonna go, that's silly. He's, it's ridiculous. Why
am I even gonna give attention to this?
Or it's entertainment and I won't engage with
it like it's information.
That's the problem.
And it really is. Even though it's ridiculous.
And, the point is that people, we need
to be objective enough to consider all these,

(01:58:05):
even corporate media, which is cartoonish as well.
But here's ones we cover. This is from
June 11, 2023.
Are endocrine disrupting chemicals, EDCs, causing gender dysphoria?
Let's look at the evidence and the answer
is yes. The peer reviewed science has found
not every possible example, but yes, it can
and it does.
And then that turns into every the the

(01:58:25):
manufactured
manipulation we just saw. Which by the way
is not stopping, but it definitely got diverted.
And that's the idea of the transgender
transition conversation and hormone therapies, and I mean,
they were murdering people.
Murdering people.
As well as,

(01:58:46):
this for,
what's the word I'm looking for?
Deformed. Right? They're de I was gonna say
deforming them. Is that the way I would
say that? I mean, it's the reality though.
I mean, it's immature because we we if
you haven't seen our work, maybe you'll find
that to be offensive. Watch the work. I'm
not telling you you can be whatever you
want. The point is that in this reality,
your children are being manipulated into a very
dangerous path. And had we talked about this
all that time ago with factual pyramid science,

(01:59:08):
maybe we'd be in a different position. I'd
also talked about this with core, McCullough.
Doctor McCullough, doctor Peter McCullough interview. Endocrine disrupting
chemicals, gender dysphoria, and the COVID injection, which
is
also an endocrine disrupting chemical. So is glyphosate.
So is a lot of the things that
we put
that the government allows to be like a
toxic soup around your family.

(01:59:29):
So let's talk about Starlink on this note
back to North Carolina. And the same kind
of conversation of misinformation or just deliberate misuse.
So this is interesting on its own right.
Elon Musk put this out October 7th. Would
you trade your current phone for an x
phone? Who didn't see that coming? If it
means you get full Starlink connectivity

(01:59:50):
anywhere, anytime?
Now here's what's frustrating about this. As I've
said many times, Wi Fi is everywhere.
Now, unfortunately, on a the first point should
be that that and it shouldn't be, even
though that would be a good thing for
us to be able to use, is that
it's also hurting us. The the the enter
the the
energy was a better word. But the point

(02:00:10):
is that the Wi Fi ultimately is is
hurting you. It really is. I mean, there's
like just like your cell phone is. These
things are having real obvious long term effects.
Most people get cancer on the side they
use their phone on. I mean, this is
like these are obvious things you could look
up.
That's only to say that we if we
really wanted to remove these problems for our
life, then that would be one that we
should do. My point though is that WiFi,
whether we like it or not, just because

(02:00:31):
you have a box in your room, I
mean, it's everywhere.
They've set up this kind of arbitrary way
to, like, tap into it, to monetize it.
But the truth is, there's been bills that
have been put forward in this country that
say, let's make an international WiFi thing, where
it's just there's free WiFi everywhere in this
country.
You could do that. Right now.
But they don't because they're making money from
it. So my point is that we don't

(02:00:52):
need his thing to pretend you get connectivity.
They could just literally give it to you
right now. Using the WiFi that's already there.
Now it it was also worth pointing out,
the whole 5 g overlap and the worry
of that. Right? I'm not even saying I
want a. I'm just saying to compare these
two things. You don't need to buy a
new phone to force Starlink into the conversation,
which I'm convinced is a military
ass asset to what's going on.

(02:01:15):
You just need the Wi Fi that's already
there.
But as I said
and let's not forget the WeChat conversation, the
idea that we all of these have been
laid out. Even X Corp before this from
Elon Musk. I mean, guys, this is all
the same thing. You're being led. And I
said step by step, it leads you into
your own subjugation using your partisan beliefs to
manipulate you into following you like some technocratic

(02:01:36):
pied piper.
I really believe that.
Now before we go, I wanna show you
this too.
Don't forget this. We talked about it recently.
On Bannon show, this is from 2021, but
we've recently brought this up again. Bannon show
you had Eric Prince.
It was alarmingly overlap with Comframe and and
Israeli intelligence and all sorts of things.

(02:01:59):
That they pushed a MAGA phone. Right? MAGA
influencers are pushing a phone preloaded with apps
like Parler and Rumble that appears to be
a vastly more expensive version of a phone
made in China.
Now this has already kind of imploded.
MAGA's world MAGA World's freedom phone, they were
calling it, actually budget Chinese phone.
Can you imagine how silly that is? From

(02:02:20):
Trump and China and Bannon and the whole
focus yet it just be you just literally
use a Chinese
budget phone
that, by the way, wasn't actually secure?
And they just pushed it, you know, and
they were I think this was an agenda.
And this is another part of it. Whether
this imploded and this is the next step,
or that was meant to drive you to
this next, I don't know. But think about

(02:02:40):
trying to push this on MAGA people and
giving you a phone that overlaps with Israeli
intelligence.
Here is where we're going though. So as
I'm pointing to this
phone step with the whole technocratic future,
dodgy stylist just simply puts this in front
of me so I wanna give him shout
out for that. Thank you. Not Don't familiar
but I like the Give people a shout
out for when they give put something and

(02:03:01):
give it give it, can't talk. When they
get my attention on it.
And so I'm gonna go over all these
right now, but thank you for pointing this
out. So here's the point.
Now what what he's gonna get into here
is the idea of the Starlink conversation.
And how it turns out, he's not actually
giving things for free.
It's pretty much a scam.

(02:03:21):
He says, we have accelerated the rollout, this
was yesterday,
of Starlink direct to cell phone connectivity for
areas affected by the hurricanes. This is being
provided free of charge by SpaceX T Mobile
to help those in need.
SpaceX says in addition to the thousands of
Starlink kiss we're delivering in response to hurricane
Helene, the Starlink team in T Mobile, which

(02:03:41):
by the way, T Mobile involved with a
lot of this great reset digital ID,
Panopticon
stuff as well, activated our direct cell to
cell satellites to provide emergency alerts and, you
know, so bottom line is they're saying we're
we're helping everybody there. And at the same
time, which seems to be a dishonest narrative
on the other side of it, they're arguing
that we're stopping it even though it doesn't
seem to be the entire picture.
Okay.

(02:04:01):
This was just what they put out, saying
we're we're gonna do this.
Starlink on the second came out first and
said, for those impacted by Hurricane Lane or
looking to support response and recovery efforts in
affected areas, Starlink is now free
for 30 days. That's where this came from.
So here

(02:04:24):
is what is actually the the again, shout
out to Evan loves werf werf, for pointing
this out. And I'm gonna show you these
right now.
Saying he's lying, and I'm gonna read you
from Gizmodo as well. The Starlink terminals cost
$400
and people are automatically placed on a $120
a month subscription
after the free month Elon is giving them.

(02:04:46):
This is ex her opinion is extorting victims
of an actual disaster for his personal gain.
He is an evil man.
Now the point people are making, and I
agree, is that this is no different than
any other promotion. You'll get a free month.
You gotta pay for the service. You gotta
pay after the 1st month. Now that's not
what you do for people suffering. If you're
giving them charity,
that that that's not charity. That's the illusion

(02:05:06):
of charity with a huge bill attached to
it.
And I'm I'll go over all these right
now. That's the one I just that's the
one we just read.
There's Gizmodo.
Yeah. So here's the next ones.
Well, first, this person says his post has
nothing to do with the Gizmodo article. Direct
to sell doesn't require Starlink equipment.
Now this says, those are impacted by hurricane

(02:05:27):
Elaine or looking for support response recovery.
Starlink's now free. He follows up by saying,
from Starlink website itself,
you need to buy hardware plus shipping and
sign a contract as a new customer that
gives you one free month, then a 120
on the contract.
Starlink aims to enable anyone impacted by the
natural disaster to access Internet connectivity.
For those in area affected by Hurricane Helane,

(02:05:48):
Starlink is available and temporarily offering free service
for the 1st month.
Please note, a Starlink kit is required to
access this free service. That's
$400. If you do not already have a
Starlink kit, you will need to purchase one
from Starlink. Now, as I understand it, there
are some that are being given.
But on top of that, you also then
pay the next month, a $120 a month
for people that now don't have sources of

(02:06:10):
income for many people.
So the first point is to make is
that they are giving these right now.
The secondary point about them saying on yesterday
that now we've accelerated the roll off for
cell phone, the connectivity, which people are saying
they don't require that, that does I've yet
to flush that out. The point is up
until this point, they've already been saddling people
with essentially a $120 monthly fee

(02:06:32):
after the 1st month.
I don't find it to be honest. That's
not what they're framing this as.
You can decide for yourself.
Here's what Gizmodo wrote. Elon Musk's free Starlink
for hurricane, and I argue that this came
out on 8th, and that's why they changed
what they're doing. That's my opinion. So up

(02:06:52):
until this point, they've been pretending they're giving
free stuff. That's what they've been framing it
as. Everyone, Nick's order out there giving all
these things away. What a hero. It looks
like you've been saddling them with fees,
which doesn't surprise me for Nick's order.
Elon's Elon Musk's free Starlink for hurricane Helane
victims will cost at least $400.
And since upon inspection, the offer for free
STARLINK service seems to be the type of

(02:07:13):
deal you might give any new customer.
For anyone interested in taking up the offer
still has to pay approximately $400 for the
dish itself, including shipping and tax. And they're
getting automatically rolled into a 120 per month
contract when the free month ends.
Now another point to add,
let's just say as he, the next day,
rolled out a new narrative,

(02:07:35):
it wouldn't be that hard for you to
wrap your mind around for them to suddenly
go tomorrow, well, guess what? Okay. No longer.
A $120 a month. And then they would
go, see? You're lying. Well, no. That wouldn't
be the way that worked out. Currently, this
is the reality. If they change it tomorrow,
they did that because we highlighted that.
Anyway, the point I think is very interesting
to me, as just a passing point really,
that we're talking about the way that we're

(02:07:56):
taking advantage of things.
Acting like you're there, I mean, the way
I think he's doing to you on Twitter
and Republicans.
Like he's there for you, championing what you're
doing, and he's using you, he's making fun
of you. I think this is what we're
dealing with. And this is not unique to
Elon, this is what people in power do.
Well, before we get to the last point,
I thought I had one more highlight in

(02:08:16):
there. It's worth reading for yourself. It's just
the general point we already made. And I
think at the end of the day, if
you are being required to pay after the
fact, that's not free.
And many people don't have the actual satellite
because I've as we've already seen the reported,
they're not just for everybody in town. They
only had a limited amount. So people are
being given the service, and then they're getting
they have to pay $400 to use it.
I just find this to be a manipulation

(02:08:38):
of the circumstances. If you wanna be charitable,
give them these things, you billionaire.
Couldn't you do that?
Certainly could. On top of that,
Charlie Robinson points out, always the victim even
during hurricane, I find this to be interesting
in the overlap. The ADL
came out and said yesterday or a day

(02:08:58):
before yesterday, hurricane Helane conspiracy theories are using
anti semitic tropes to foster hate, which has
added to the dangers of some of FEMA's
Jewish staff and undermines critical safety information and
relief efforts. Twitter should enforce its hate policies
and stop this content from further engaging lives.
This is fantastically interesting. Okay. So you've got

(02:09:19):
republicans out there,
blindly pro Israel,
telling you you're supposed to support what's going
on, that Israel's on their side, that now
suddenly are being called racist because they're pointing
out that your government's doing things with weather
and saying FEMA's lying to you. Doesn't there
seem to be an interesting contradiction there? Yes.
The point is that there's only the people
in the parties the paradigm

(02:09:40):
that are really on their own side. All
of you out there believing you're on the
side of Israel, you're on the side of
the republicans, you're being played. What's funny to
me is that the ADL, which I, Jason
Lee, James Lee did a great doc I
interview about it. It's basically a spy agency
spying on Americans for Israel.
It's literally calling you an anti Semitic racist
person for saying things about

(02:10:02):
the weather.
Conspiracy.
They're literally saying hurricane Helane conspiracy theories are
anti Semitic tropes. How in the hell does
that make sense?
Is there I mean, it doesn't it doesn't
even matter if you're out there pretending that
some of Jews are responsible for the hurricanes,
which I'm sure somebody's doing,
which we should laugh about. The point though
is that at the end of the day,
most of these people are republicans who are

(02:10:22):
discussing the ideas of weather modification,
of the lithium, of all these different things.
And they're calling you racist.
And you're calling us racist for pointing out
what Israel's doing. Don't you see a problem
there? Can't you see how you're being played?
Can't you see how the word racist or
anti semitic is being thrown around like it's
meaningless? It is for them. It's whatever they

(02:10:43):
don't like.
I just find it to be important.
But sadly, most people that need to hear
this won't want to listen to it.
Now Michael Tracey points out that Kushner,
Jared Kushner, has called for Israel to invade
Lebanon.
Days later, boom, they do that. Followed by
a phone call from Trump himself congratulating BB.

(02:11:04):
It says hopefully RFK Junior and his masonic
podcaster crew throw another Maha rally so they
can explain how the military industrial complex is
absolutely terrified of their whole historic movement.
This was posted on October 9th. The point
I wanna highlight is Jared Kushner calling for
Israel to invade Lebanon.
And remembering

(02:11:26):
that Jared Kushner, as Howard Levick pointed out,
is
basically choosing who is on their transition team.
Which as Daniel McAdams pointed out, which will
guarantee the same thing we've seen before.
And he also says, big pharma,
industries,
business.
Right? Big pharma, all the ones we want.
Right?
Or not. Listen. Do it for yourself. We

(02:11:48):
already played it. So I just wanna rec
I want you people to recognize the connection
between all of this and how you are
being used.
And I'm all I'm speaking primarily to the
conservatives that might be blinded by what the
Team Smart politics are doing.
Now let's bring this over into the Israel
conversation.
I thought this was important to play today.
This is a great documentary

(02:12:10):
that is air air wars are the ones
that did this dot org.
As Joe writes, over the past year, our
team reviewed hundreds of clips of air strikes
released on social media by the IDF,
systematically
geolocating them and matching them to the victims
who were actually killed.
The result is our most powerful investigation to

(02:12:30):
date. Now I'm gonna play you about 10
minutes of this.
It's powerful.
If if you watch this show, you already
know all of this. Not the specifics they're
gonna show you, but the reality that they
are 100%
targeting civilians.
There's no way around it. The evidence is
I've I've never seen more evidence for something
in my life.

(02:12:51):
Why? Because we've seen an entire year of
it broadcast
and laughingly, gleefully shown on their TikToks and
Instagram. We all have it. It's very, very
obvious.
The 90% of their cabinet of their of
the Knesset have spoken out about how they
want that to happen.
My point in showing you this is to
maybe reach the person who needs to see
it today and recognizing how obvious it is
that this is a manufactured,

(02:13:12):
organized effort to just ethnically cleanse Palestinians, and
now that's shifted into Lebanese in general.
So here is the actual website.
The killings they tweeted is what it's called.
An air wars investigation.
Powerful. And on there's a lot of information
just on this website. So let's go through

(02:13:32):
this. I'll play this first part of it
for you to check out.
In the past year, Israel has released more
videos of air strikes than perhaps any military
in the history of warfare.
More than 1300
grainy clips of strikes in Gaza have been
posted on social media.

(02:13:54):
They show only a fraction of the tens
of thousands of strikes conducted by the Israeli
military since October 7th.
They are those that the military chose to
release, the ones they wanted the world to
see.
But who was actually killed?
In the largest public analysis of military strike
footage, Air Wars, in collaboration with Sky News,

(02:14:17):
reviewed hundreds of clips released by the Israeli
military from the 1st month of the war.
We identified nearly 20 strikes in which civilians
were harmed that the Israeli military itself published
footage of.
In these strikes alone, air was found that
more than 400 civilians were reportedly killed.

(02:14:52):
Israel launched one of the largest military campaigns
in modern history.
Within a month, the Israeli Defense Forces declared
it had hit more than 12,000
targets, reportedly killing more than 7,000 Palestinians.
Almost every day for the 1st month of
the war, the Israeli Air Force posted footage
of strikes on social media, including X, formerly

(02:15:15):
known as Twitter.
The videos are typically black and white, with
multiple strikes on different locations
compiled into single videos with generalized captions about
targeting Hamas.
There are rarely any victims visible and few
locational details published.

(02:15:35):
Through a process called geolocation,
we compared more than 600 clips from the
1st month with satellite imagery and reports from
Gaza of civilians killed or injured.
Despite most of these clips being too low
resolution or including too few details to locate,
we found the exact locations of 72 strikes.

(02:15:57):
In 17 of these,
the footage matched the exact location where Air
Wars had documented reports of civilians killed or
injured.
In these strikes, at least 4 48 civilians
were reportedly killed, including 204 children and a
123
women.
The Israeli army rejected the findings of this

(02:16:19):
investigation,
stating that many of the accusations
and claims were baseless and constitute speculation.
It did not specify which accusations it was
referring to.
The videos were released by the Israeli military
to portray the bombing campaign as precise and
targeted,
designed to minimize civilian casualties.

(02:16:40):
This investigation offers a different story. By detailing
the full human cost of just 3 strikes,
we uncover not precision, but devastating levels of
civilian harm.
At 6:22
PM on October 9, 2023,
the Israeli Defense Forces tweeted this video alongside
15 other strikes.

(02:17:01):
The caption made no specific mention of this
mosque, stating that planes were striking throughout Gaza
and wreaking havoc on Hamas terrorists.
But when and where was the strike,
and who was killed?
7 hours before the tweet, the Al Susi

(02:17:22):
mosque in Al Shati refugee camp was destroyed.
A photographer who arrived at the scene shortly
after told Air Force he saw dead and
injured Palestinians being brought out from nearby homes
and shops.
Some had been queuing at a water fountain
when the bomb landed.
At least 10 civilians were reportedly killed, including

(02:17:43):
an 84 year old woman, and a mother,
and her infant son.
While religious sites have special protections under international
humanitarian law, Residents said there was no warning
before the attack.
We verified the strike's location by comparing ground
footage with satellite imagery.

(02:18:06):
Among the debris, the distinctive domes found on
the roof can be seen in satellite imagery
and the IDF footage.
Before the war, the square was popular meeting
place in the refugee camp, hosting markets, volleyball
games, and screenings of World Cup matches.

(02:18:33):
In this video, taken 3 years ago, children
gathered outside the mosque after Friday prayers as
a charity staged a performance to help those
exposed to trauma through war.
The Israeli military did not respond to questions
about this specific strike but highlighted Hamas' history

(02:18:53):
of operating from civilian neighborhoods.
The IDF directs its strikes towards military targets
and military operatives only
and does not target civilian objects and civilians,
a statement read.
Whilst militaries have published airstrike footage in the
past, it has never been on this scale.

(02:19:13):
So why has the Israeli military chosen to
release so many videos?
The first narrative they wanna push out towards
domestic audience is that we're winning. After 11
months of hardship
and war that cost a lot of money,
cost the lives of a lot of Israeli
soldiers, we're winning. Number 2 message is a
message of deterrence,
which is aimed at

(02:19:34):
Hamas,
Iran,
Hezbollah,
others
in the axis of resistance to say, if
you attack us, this is what will happen
to you. The problem with that is though
that the these messages are sent broadly, and
so I think the most important,
sort of audience globally now is the international
community

(02:19:54):
who view this war this this war increasingly
critically
in terms of, you know, war crimes being
committed, some calling it a genocide.
So in this context, Israel should show restraint,
should show that they're, you know, that they
when they strike, they do so in a
targeted fashion. All of the footage being pushed
out by the IDF,
suggests
the opposite.

(02:20:16):
On October 27th,
the IDF posted a compilation of 10 air
strikes with a caption stating
250 Hamas targets had been struck that day.
In the first clip, the subtitle strike of
a Hamas terror tunnel accompanies a series of
explosions.
We verified this building as the Al Taj
Tower, a 7 story residential block in an

(02:20:38):
affluent neighborhood of Gaza City.
This is Hala Saleh,
reading a passage she posted on her Instagram.
Her passions were her 4 children and reading,
and she dreamed of opening her own bookshop

(02:20:59):
in Gaza.
With days of intense bombing,
the family including Hala's daughters, Maimana and Habiba,
fled their home to shelter with relatives in
Altaj Tower.
On the day of the strike, 18 of
the family members were in one apartment.
Hala and Maimana sharing a bed trying to
sleep after a night of strikes while Habiba

(02:21:21):
was curled up on her phone on the
balcony.
When the tower was bombed, Hala's brother Hisham
was in southern Gaza.
After several failed calls to Hala's cell phone
and a day searching in hospitals,
he traveled to the tower block.
Immediately

(02:22:03):
Eventually,
Hashan found Hala's body among the rubble.

(02:22:48):
In total, 15 members of Hala's family were
killed.
After her death, an artist's drawing of Hala
with 4 small birds perched on her was
circulated on Instagram.
Air wars identified at least a 101 civilians
killed in this strike,
including

(02:23:09):
44
children and 37 women.
Now, I'll leave it there.
Make sure you watch the rest of it.
It's very much worth your time. Great job
they did.
The point is there's the amount of evidence
is the there's so many things to take
away from this whole thing. But the one

(02:23:30):
that we need to deal with immediately is
the fact that your government is without question
aware of this, Without question, a part of
this. Without question, complicit in all this taking
place.
And then lying about it. So they don't
care about the law. They don't care about
human rights. They don't care about anything that
ever pretended they care about. And that's not
just Biden's administration, that is your government.

(02:23:51):
Because it's been going on a lot longer
than this last so many years.
Now, last few points in the segment that
we're gonna finish with the the story of
Jeffrey.
UN inquiry inquiry accuses Israel of crime of
extermination in the destruction of Gaza health system.
This is from October 10th, today.
Another UN inquiry. Reuters reports accusing Israel of

(02:24:12):
the crime of extermination.
Right? The this is app this no. This
is overlapping into not just the ICC, ICJ.
Now the UN is beginning to roll this
forward.
Extermination, we're getting to genocide here.
Only so much of this can keep going
until somebody shifts.
Something needs to shift.
Here's horets for those that wanna pretend it's

(02:24:32):
only makes sense. You know? There's Israeli media.
UN report accuses Israel, Hamas, of war crimes
and crimes against humanity during the Gaza war.
October 20th, in case you need to see
it, hit damning evidence of war crimes as
Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza.
No. That wasn't from yesterday. That's October 20,
2023.
Not as if you thought the 20th yesterday,

(02:24:52):
but, no, this is not recent. This is
from last year. This is right aft this
is weeks after October 7th.
Damning evidence of war crimes as they wipe
out entire families. And now we get the
information of the habsura and lavender and AI
programs and demolishing entire buildings. Now we see
in Lebanon, they're taking out 6 buildings to
go after 1 per this is what they
do.
The evidence has always been there.

(02:25:13):
It's about us caring enough to do something
about it. And I never mean violence. Here's
Tiberias pointing out, I've just read that more
children have been killed in Gaza in the
last 12 months than the entire world outside
of Gaza for the last 5 years.
Now this is a graphic that's already gone
around. This is from UN information. The truth
is obvious. The amount from all the different
wars ongoing, last 5 years,

(02:25:36):
more children have been killed by Israel just
in the last year than every other place
in 5 years.
Well, let's keep pretending like it's not obvious.
Now, hopefully, this will jar some of these
people out of their their willful ignorance.
Because I think a lot of America First
people out there should damn well care about
an American journalist being kidnapped and pay potentially

(02:25:56):
being killed,
put to death
by a foreign government
when I mean, does it really matter? I
mean, let's let's just go through this because
the arguments we've seen are pretty multifaceted about
Russian journalists and Chinese journalists, all these different
conversations. So here's what Max says. I've just
learned this on the 9th. The that, Jeremy
Jeremy. I'm sorry. I think I said Jeffrey.

(02:26:18):
Jeremy Lofredo, who also writes for Unlearned Hangout
as well, has all has was among the
journalists arrested in the Israeli military and is
still in jail.
His phone has now been confiscated,
and that's all he's able to say for
now, he says. Now this is on top
of the fact that they're just an overlapping
point. This is where he highlights. This is
I thought I included this elsewhere in this
one as well. I guess not. So this

(02:26:39):
is Andre x. So we've already referenced before.
He's the one the people that's been highlighting
a lot of what the illegal settlers are
doing and getting beat up for it. He
got, like, almost he got hit in the
face that could've killed him. Huge well like,
a huge knot on the side of his
cheek.
He got beat up for it for trying
to expose the crimes they're committing with IDF
help.
And as is today, I was beaten, kidnapped,

(02:27:00):
blindfolded, and taken to a military base by
the Israeli occupation forces together with 4 other
journalists, which includes Fermi.
2 of us were held for 11 hours
without charges. My phone was confiscated, stolen, and
one of us is still in custody. You
know who that is. But why would that
be? Why would the American journalist be held
still? Where's the American government? Do they care?

(02:27:21):
And this is up today.
According to Israel's Y Net News. So it's
being released in Israeli media.
Where's Donald Trump? Where's Joe Biden?
Aren't they usually competing to see who comes
out first and then criticizing the other for
not declaring and not decrying and not,
condemning whatever they're supposed to condemn that day?

(02:27:42):
Right.
Interestingly enough, when an American journalist gets taken
while trying to cover crimes of Israel, they're
completely empty.
Israel is charging US journalist Jeremy Lufredo
with, quote,
aiding the enemy during wartime and providing information
to the enemy
for reporting on the Israeli military targets hit

(02:28:04):
by Iran earlier this month. Now, obviously,
to be objective, it's certainly possible that he
was she chose to help the other side
with some I don't believe that. Based on
his work thus far and the fact that
he's do he did amazing work over the
years,
I don't I don't find it logical that
this person would risk his reporting
to aid one knowing that even if he

(02:28:25):
felt it was just, that he would still
risk something like this, which would hinder his
reporting, which I argue he probably finds more
important in the long run to expose what's
going on. My opinion.
But I just I don't believe that. And
on top of all that, Israel's lied about
everything its entire existence, so I'm pretty sure
we should take this with a grain of
salt. But here's what it says.
For reporting on the Israeli military targets hit

(02:28:47):
by Iran earlier this month. So you could
also recognize that him reporting on the reality
of 1,
that they
warned them,
didn't kill any civilians, and only hit military
targets. I said 1, but 1, 2, and
3.
That they would read that as we don't
want that truth to be discussed, therefore, you're

(02:29:07):
helping the enemy. That's definitely Zionism logic. And
it says Israel is detaining and prosecuting an
American journalist for doing journalism.
Will his media colleagues defend him? Right? Where
is everybody? I haven't seen barely anybody talk
about this outside of people on Twitter, mostly
independent journalism.

(02:29:28):
So it's important to understand.
Actually, I think I have a tweet for
it as well. That this is what's already
been reported.
It says here, he was endangering national security.
Oh, doesn't that sound familiar? Something your government
would do to go after an American too,
or anybody else. The charges against him include
aiding the enemy during wartime. This is very
real, guys. This is not some side story.

(02:29:50):
This is a American journalist who is risking
death
at the hands of a foreign government that
your government has already shown is either too
in incapable, unwilling,
or too compromised to do anything about.
Craig Stoker,
that we've referenced many times.
Veteran,
belief in special forces, says, so the American
government will work to get an Israeli

(02:30:11):
spy
posing as a journalist to be released from
Lebanon,
but not an actual American journalist detained by
Israel.
Now this one, we I we this there's
a lot of stories. This one I I
I was aware of, but I haven't talked
about today or in past. But the point
is this is an example. This is a
recent story of a person who was take
who was held up essentially in Lebanon for

(02:30:32):
what arguably was
spying.
But again, it it's it's a possible let
it's it's I don't it's impossible to take
anybody at face value in a situation like
this.
But as I understand it,
he was released.
Not because that they threatened or they but
because they interviewed, re and and then he
was let go.
And yet they still cried foul. Right? The
point is this was while they were just

(02:30:53):
under attack, while they were sabotaging them, while
there were terrorist attacks, like pager attacks. So
it's pretty interesting to think about when it's
an Israeli journalist.
Either way, I would do take if I
have to draw the line. He's a journalist.
He needs to be protected. But if he
crosses the line, then yes. That needs to
be proven.
And most likely something involving the the more
than just the country making the accusation. Right?

(02:31:14):
But now Jeremy is in the same position,
but they're the point he's making or not
the same position, but the point he's making
is that over here, we have an example
of Israeli journalist
that the American government freaks out about and
gets at least make statements about, which it
seems they were gonna be released anyway. Then
you got Jeremy,
who no one's said a word about. And
we're going on what? 3 days now?

(02:31:35):
Dan Cohen writes, Jeremy Lofredo
was beaten and detained in Israel for reporting
the exact same information
about damage caused by Iranian strikes that PBS
correspondent
Nick Schifrin
published.
But Schifrin wasn't arrested and is silent on
the Fredo's detention.

(02:31:56):
It says outside Mossad headquarters,
and it's true. Right? So the point is
that he reported the same information. So why
is he being attacked? I argue it's probably
because he's part of Grazo News or because
he is an independent journalist because he is
not influenced
by what they're doing.
Whether this guy was told to say this
or whatever the dynamic is, most people in
corporate media, I argue either whether it's the

(02:32:16):
platform or themselves are compromised.
That's my opinion. I think it's obvious the
way we see this playing out. And we're
lying about what's going on.
Daniel McAdams says, if an American journalist
does goes digging for juicy war stories in
Russia
and is arrested. He is a brave journalistic
hero in the eyes of the US government.

(02:32:37):
If an American journalist goes digging for juicy
war stories in Israel and is arrested, he's
absolutely unmentionable in the eyes of the US
government.
It's disgusting.
So here's an update. Let me grab this
real quick because I grabbed this after the
fact.
This is an update on what's going on
right now. Now this is
uncomfortably real.
Because it seems like this, at the very

(02:32:59):
least, could go in a pretty bad direction.
And I argue,
if the US government if the Israeli government
decided
that they wanna kill him, which is what
this that charge
treason, essentially, or spying. That's what that would
cause, or what they would justify.
What do you think the US government would
do? Based on what's happened so far, they've

(02:33:19):
killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands.
Many of them Americans in Gaza.
Why would they stop draw well, why would
they draw the line now?
This is pretty scary when you think about
it because I don't believe that they care.
So let me grab this video.

(02:33:41):
One second.
So this is him giving you the update
of what's going on. Wait, I just did
this. Dang it. Hold on.
I swear, I feel like sometimes my computer
works against me.
Okay.
Let's see.

(02:34:02):
There it is, at the top where it
shouldn't be. Okay. Here we go. Hate to
be the bearer of bad news everyone, but
we've had a terrible up. Kit Claringberg speaking.
Date in the case of Jeremy Lofredo.
Jeremy is a 28 year old US citizen
and independent journalist who, 2 days ago, was
arrested by Israeli military,
officers
while crossing a checkpoint in the illegally occupied

(02:34:23):
West Bank.
He has been held in an Israeli dungeon,
ever since. I had a hearing earlier today.
He has been formally charged
with aiding the enemy during wartime and providing
information
to the Don't you think that if there
was any respect for this relationship that the
Israeli government would have been concluded the US
government or would have handed him back or,
like, I mean, any other context, UK and

(02:34:44):
the US. Do you think the UK would
charge an American journalist even if they expect
suspected that? Most of them would ignore it
anyway because they just don't wanna cause that
kind of a problem. They don't want it
to look embarrassing for both of them. Israel
doesn't care. Israel's desperate. Israel seems to hate
everybody.
I just think we need to recognize how
crazy that is, that this line and and
eve and even though that's crazy, the US

(02:35:05):
government hasn't even said a word nor has
the journalists
have the journalists of the mainstream alternative media
or the mainstream media. The enemy, you know,
this is despite, you know, as his as
his attorney made clear clear at the hearing,
a spy would never have acted so publicly
and transparently. Jeremy has done nothing wrong. These
are allegations which,

(02:35:25):
can result in life imprisonment or the death
to that this is, like, really, really serious
and grave. Earlier this year, a member of
Netanyahu's ruling Likud party made similar allegations
against the Jewish director of a local Israeli
NGO,
And don't forget, she is said twice in

(02:35:46):
front of the Knesset that children in Gaza
should be killed. They're all guilty
more than once.
Specter of a local Israeli NGO,
Bat Shelem, which documents human rights abuses by
the Israeli government towards Palestinians. This is a
independent journalist
facing the rest of his life in a
a in a vile Israeli dungeon where, you

(02:36:08):
know, Palestinian prisoners are routinely tortured and subject
subject to violent rape by their captors often
for crimes crimes like throwing a stone at
an occupation tank,
tearing through their village.
And I might add that the story of
of the charges against Jeremy was broken by
the website called Y Net,
and

(02:36:29):
it it, noted that, Jeremy's
arrest had not raised concerns of a potential
international incident
between Israel and the US because Jeremy is
a US citizen. Well, let's make that international
incident happen. Right. There's no time to waste.
Jeremy,
is incarcerated. We we are not. So act

(02:36:50):
accordingly.
Bombard your elected representatives with emails,
like, you know, bombard the state department with
phone calls,
contact the local US embassy in Israel,
try and get the mainstream media to cover
this Because, we need to get word out
and we need to get Jeremy out as
soon as possible.

(02:37:10):
Yeah. It's pretty wild. I mean, let's not
forget something like Jeremy Pollard.
Right? Or is it, was it Jeremy?
We'll see.
Let's see. Hold on.
Let me make sure I got the name
Jonathan Pollard. Jeremy, because we're just talking about
that. But Jonathan Pollard. Right? The the spy

(02:37:30):
that was released was an Israeli spy. And,
of course, I mean, the whole point is
this this overlap
of of net Netanyahu and, like, basically, welcoming
back like a war hero. I mean, the
point is that maybe Israel's designs are to
do that back. I mean, who knows what
their logic is or whatever you wanna call
logic of a Zionist mentality. It's obvious that
this is a reach.

(02:37:52):
I swear if I mean, the fact that
what we know what's going on, raping these
prisoners, torturing them, I mean, I'm I'm genuinely
concerned for I I it's it have it's
given me a feeling since I've read about
this story that I can't get rid of.
Like, imagine what the I mean, this is
a guy who's trying to at least, in
my opinion, you can decide for yourself, out
there doing good work trying to inform people
about horrible things, and now they're gonna

(02:38:13):
the possibility makes me really scared for him.
Glenn Greenwald says when Russia imprisoned The Wall
Street Journal's Evan Gershkovitch,
the entire corporate media made it their crusade
justifiably to secure his release. Since it's Israel
doing it here to the US journalist, this
will be largely ignored
just like when Ukraine killed US journalist, Gonzalo

(02:38:34):
Lyra. Remember that?
Crazy.
Going underground points out. Now this is a
different story. Breaking news. Russian police brutally
assault a young protesters,
opposing what they're doing.
But check this out. Look how brutal Russia
is.
Punching them right in the face. Oh, wait.
Time out. Got your attention. This is actually

(02:38:56):
police in the United States brutally assaulting young
Americans who are simply opposing their government's complicity
in Israel's genocide.
Look at what they're doing. Look at this
cop right here
relentlessly beating this guy in the face like
he this is a cop fighting.
Welcome to the beginning. Watch this. Look at
that.
Hey. That that guy's not even resisting. So

(02:39:17):
these are people who are beating you up
because you're calling out government genocide
involved with Israel's genocide.
The point is if these were scenes as
he's writing from Russia, from China, from Iran,
from Venezuela, or any country in the Global
South, there would be nonstop coverage by the
media. With politicians being interviewed calling for sanctions,
even military intervention,
not this

(02:39:37):
way. So, obviously, Americans, if you're paying attention,
we need to recognize why all this is
happening, why you're getting beat up when you
have a free with the right to free
speech or the inner the god given right
to speak your mind
by police who are supposed to be guided
by the constitution?
Israel. And ask yourself how that makes sense.
Ask yourself why an American journalist can be
arrested and threatened with death for doing his

(02:39:58):
job and your government doesn't say a word.
And the corporate media and the mainstream alternative
media will say a word. Why? Now who
probably tomorrow, the next day, they will because
they're gonna be driven to. Opportunists
will always fall in line when they recognize
a consequence. But right now, days have passed.
This is a very public story. It's all
over Twitter, but it's not being shared by
people you would expect. Only well, other than

(02:40:20):
the people I would expect, not the corporate
media that many people would expect.
Wild. Now to finish this off, I just
wanna show some other examples of this happening
in Palestine and elsewhere. Oh, I'm sorry. One
more from
Kit Claringberg we just saw. He said, ominous
news. I think we just shared his update
there. Charged by Zionist entity authorities with aiding
and abetting

(02:40:40):
the yeah. Which the well, local US embassy
representatives attended.
Wow.
Okay. That's crazy.
So they're charging with aiding and abetting during
wartime
and a hearing
at which US embassy representatives were there.
We need to raise the absolute hell about
this until he's freed. My god. So they're
watching this go down. So that means your

(02:41:02):
government knows about this, and they still haven't
spoke up about it.
Gosh. Darn it. And it says, oh, there
are concerns
about an international incident between Israel and the
US over his military arrest and attention without
trial on bogus charges. Well, let's make that
international incident happen.
100%.
Now you just saw this
as much as, they wanna make it out

(02:41:22):
to be that they're going after terrorists. Right?
He's a spy. Palestinian journalists are terrorists. It's
simple how they just dump the narrative they
want on top of what's going on. Well,
here's a Fox News journalist telling you that
they're killing Palestinian journalists. And we already played
this, but it's important to play in this
context.
There are so many neighborhoods that are flattened.
Palestinians that are internally displaced will simply have

(02:41:44):
no homes to return to. And while we
get a firsthand look at the destruction here,
it's important to remember that Palestinian journalists do
not have this access. They have been pushed
to the south. Dozens have been killed.
There's this false narrative
about Palestinian journalists.
More than a 100 of them have been

(02:42:04):
killed by Israel since the war began.
And
I take very few positions in the conflicts
that we covered,
but let this be a position that I
take.
Journalists,
specifically Palestinian journalists,
must be protected amid the war. I'm interested

(02:42:24):
to see if he speaks up.
I'm interested to see if he says something
about this. Because it's pretty interesting they took
a line on Palestinian journalists,
Which I argue, that's a far larger leap
than this.
But it might be that corporate media has
put a, like, thou shall not pass, you
know, persona non grata on this because they
don't Because where do you think that influence

(02:42:45):
comes from?
Whether he may may maybe this was by
design. Who knows? He always consider what the
logic might be, some long term manipulation.
Point is, right now, none of them none
of them
are calling out what's going on to him.
The Israelis have killed journalists in drone strikes.

(02:43:06):
They've killed them with small arms fire, and
it's unacceptable.
It is.
But it's still happening today.
Here are some examples. Francesca Albanese points out
that journalists must be protected in war, especially
Palestinians. This is what this is the same
clip from him. He says why? Because Palestinian
journalists are the only ones who could report
from within Gaza. You know why? Don't you
remember? No one else was allowed in

(02:43:28):
by design.
And because they have been deliberately targeted often
by drones.
You know, you see how obviously organized that
is? You're not no one else allowed in
to see it, which is very which is
unprecedented almost in any war zone.
And now they're killing off all the journalists
because they're all terrorists apparently even though we
know that's not true. Verifiably so.
Ahmed points out journalist Fad Al,

(02:43:50):
Wahedi
was left paralyzed permanently after being shot by
an Israeli sniper in the neck and the
back. Israel doesn't allow foreign journalists inside Gaza
to report and is murdering and maiming Palestinian
ones, exposing the genocide. Whether American or not,
mind you, Israel has killed a 177
journalists and media workers since October 7th. Here's
the video of him being shot.

(02:44:15):
And just jumps over to where he's being
carried in. Now the point is he's in
the hospital.
And he I think this ends with that.
Yeah. He's in the hospital.
Luckily, still alive, but apparently he's paralyzed.
That's just that's just a this is, you
know, 4 times a day. I mean, this
is, like, this is just Tuesday. Whatever it
is, this is commonplace
in what's going on in Lebanon now too.
Dan Cohen, same point. Palestinian journalist has been

(02:44:37):
shot in the neck by Israeli sniper. Israel
doesn't allow foreign journalists because they don't want
them to see what's going on.
Cherokee World points out 3 more Palestinian journalists
have been targeted by Israel's relentless attacks on
media. This is this is as of today.
3 more. Al Aqsa TV reported that photojournalist
Mohammed Al Tanani
Tanani was killed. Reporter Tamir Labod was injured

(02:44:57):
and in Jubileeah, October 9th. Now what we're
not gonna get into now is the ongoing
depop the ethnic cleansing of Northern Gaza, which
is still continuing.
And they're murdering people. I'm gonna rapidly go
over to end, but they're murdering people left
and right who are just in these areas
they refuse to leave. And it's their they
have a right to stay where they want
their their their territory, their homes. And even

(02:45:18):
if they leave, they're being bombed where they
go anyway.
Sarah Wilkinson points out also yesterday, Palestinian journalist
Omar al Bawali
Bawawi was shot and killed by these rallies
in Northern Gaza while he's reporting on the
massacres in Jabliya, the new massacres.
AJ says Israeli forces killed 19 year old
Palestinian journalist Hassan Hamad after he had been
receiving threats for his to his life for

(02:45:38):
months.
Here is the this is the, international what
is it?
The inter the global what is it called?
The international
I looked this up earlier. I wasn't familiar
with it until I looked it up. Oh,
here it is. Let me see what it's
called. I just wanna say it right. International
for Federation of Journalists?

(02:45:58):
Yeah. International Federation of Journalists is this platform.
They put out the article
saying oh, I should've just kept it up.
War in Gaza, Israel must be held accountable.
Here they are posting. It's saying happening now,
journalists, unions, and associations stand in solidarity with
Palestinian journalists. You see, this is going well

(02:46:19):
beyond
Palestinian journalists and Palestinian numbers. The world sees
this, guys.
Every aspect of it other than blind followers,
Zionists, and political people.
Urge Israel to stop killing our colleagues in
Gaza and elsewhere.
Israel has killed at least a 130 in
Gaza. Now my point is this stuff's all

(02:46:39):
coming out over the last couple of days,
and now they're even arresting American journalists. They
don't care.
Now here is what an Israeli journalist has
to say about Israel. You've seen Gideon Levy
speak before. This is a very respected Israeli
journalist.
So consider that in the context of what
we're discussing. He is a journalist himself, and
here's what he has to say about Israel.
An Israeli. I was born in Israel. I

(02:47:00):
even perceive myself as an Israeli patriot. I
care about Israel. I belong to Israel. I'm
attached to Israel. Don't speak about symmetry because
there is no symmetry.
I would even suggest that there is no
conflict.
Was there a French, Algerian conflict?
There was a brutal French occupation in Algeria
which came to a zone,
And there is no Israeli Palestinian conflict. There

(02:47:21):
is a brutal Israeli occupation which must come
to its end one way or the other.
In our dark backyard,
there is a regime which is today by
far one of the most cruel, brutal tyrannies
on earth, not less than this, and I
know what I say. You're gonna cover it
to 40 years. And this regime
cannot be defined
but as an apartheid.

(02:47:45):
Now he goes on. But just for timing,
it's obvious what he's saying and it's very
clear that's the provable reality. Now in Lebanon,
the same thing is happening.
Sonali, the,
Dawan points out, she just quotes, I want
to know who chose to press that button
and target those and kill Islam and change
my entire life. I want to know the
face, the name, something, just something, anything, Lebanese

(02:48:06):
journalist points out. Saying this about their friends,
their colleagues that are being killed in front
of them. They demand accountability which seems to
not be coming.
A year since October 13th,
Israel,
the Israeli attack that killed Lebanese journalists.
This is before they invaded, you know, officially
since October 7th in Lebanon.

(02:48:27):
But remember, we already talked about this.
On October 13th,
Israel killed a Lebanese journalist.
A Reuters journalist, guys, in Lebanon.
Israel calls for entire or rather Reuters journalist
killed by Israeli bombing.
Even Reuters followed up a week later and
finally admitted
it. Here's the actual video if you'd like

(02:48:48):
to see it.
This one survived luckily enough,
but he the one they killed was in
the in the car back here that they
blew up. They literally bombed his
car. And even Reuters was too cowardly to
point it out for, like, a week. So
this is not just October 7th. This is
not even just because of Lebanon recently and
their Sheba farms. This which, by the way,
is illegally occupied territory. It's because Israel

(02:49:11):
is an it's genocidal entity.
Now we've also talked about the doctor conversation
as Glenn green Glenn Greenwald points out, and
we already pointed to this. 65 doctors, nurses,
paramedics have been reaching out to New York
Times. Everyone's trying to tell you, we all
see this happening. I'm simply saying,
I've been trying to call this out for
months. Here's a major thread with all these
doctors saying the same thing. So, hopefully, that

(02:49:32):
gets some reach. They're everywhere.
These are doctors in these areas telling you,
we're in the Indonesian hospital.
The roads have been blocked. We're being killed.
They're speaking up everywhere. Here's another one telling
you the same one actually telling you that
a friend of his, an emergency doctor, was
able to actually escape, is now looking for
a way out of Jabaliya Camp, where life
is becoming impossible. Internet is cut off. Oh,

(02:49:52):
look at that. Everyone's talking about this in
the context. We don't care about this. Right?
Obviously, we should care
about all of it.
This is the reality. This is the point
that you're gonna make in that tweet the
other day. If I'm able to talk about
both and care about both, so can you.
To pretend like 1 you why you care
so much about this? Would you care about
that? Well, you could say the same thing
in reverse. How about we care about all

(02:50:13):
of it? How about we care about human
life
and stop drying artificial wines?
The point is, guys, that they're suffering because
of your tax dollars and your name, and
the steps just like what's going on in
North Carolina, which all of it matters.
Doctor Mustafa El Masri points out the road
the last road to safety has now been
blocked. It was on 9th. People seized inside
of Jabaliya camp are being slaughtered. Family after

(02:50:35):
family. That's what's going on in Gaza right
now according to the doctors in these areas.
Francesca Albany says reliable sources in in Gaza
confirm it's accurate. The threat of yet another
massacre in Northern Gaza is very real. This
was 2 days ago. Israel wants to be
ordered to stop.
Doesn't seem to be coming at all.
Now Howard Beckett points out the Israeli army
is ordered to evacuation of 3 hospitals on

(02:50:57):
9th.
They are full of children in incubators.
Children with with they're barely alive
on,
incubators and on all sorts of apparatus. And
the point is that they are shot. They're
missing arms. They've got shot in the head
multiple times. What are they supposed to
do? It's on 9th. Doesn't matter. They already
did it. They're driving people out of them.

(02:51:18):
They don't they're gonna leave them there to
die just like the other hospitals. What about
the older women? Older men.
People in wheelchairs. People too sick to travel.
People too too emaciated to travel. They don't
care.
That's the point.
They know this and simply don't care. His
point is, they've ordered these to evacuate. The
ICU is full

(02:51:39):
of children barely alive after Israeli attacks.
They know and don't care. In fact, that's
why they're probably doing it. There's nowhere for
them to go. There's no zero evidence that
these are anything but hospitals. Even according to
the foreign doctors working there from around the
world.
And yet, they're still killing them.
And here's what we're seeing. This is as
of yesterday. At least 15 displaced persons have

(02:52:02):
been killed, 10 wounded Israeli bombing of tents
in the Yemen school, refugee shelters in Jebeliah.
Horribly graphic images if you care to look.
Tiberias points this out on the 8th.
Chipotle camp.
Children murdered.
And he simply points out that everybody supports

(02:52:23):
this. The genocide is funded and supplied by
the liberal
Now you see if you're focusing more on
the liberal side of this. Frankly, I think
it's obvious that it's a sure government. All
of it. Left and right.
Now I'm I'm gonna come back to this.
I just think it's this is embarrassing. So
just like we talked about before,
whether it was the last time about the
the ceasefire and the the agreement that somehow

(02:52:45):
Hamas is responsible
because they won't come to the table, but
we never designed it with Hamas because we
don't want we can't have a ceasefire with
them, and somehow that's supposed to make sense.
So it's their fault they didn't come to
the table for a deal with not them
because that lines up. I mean, these people
are clowns.
And same thing here. Once again, state department
embarrassing himself or Matt Miller, claiming the US

(02:53:06):
has not made an assessment at this time
about whether Israel's blocking aid. And then literally
goes on to say, it's urgent they correct
the situation and allow aid to get in.
It's only 50 seconds. I might as well
play it, then we'll wrap right here. I
mean, it's it's pertinent that you you have
made a a an assessment or the secretary
made an assessment that Israel has not been

(02:53:26):
blocking aid,
and that was kinda based on the fact
that they were making improvements. Since they've gone
backward, would you
revisit that assessment? It sounds like things have
gone backward from that. So what we said
in when the secretary made that assessment, and
if you look at the the language inside
the National Security memorandum report, it's quite clear
that this would be an ongoing assessment and

(02:53:48):
that we expect progress to continue,
and
Meaning something's not happening, which is a basically
obvious point. That if
we see a change in situation, it'll change
our policy. And at the moment, for the
purpose of US law, is Israel blocking the
delivery of the humanitarian aid? We have not
made that assessment at this time, but that
goes to the point that it is urgent

(02:54:08):
that they correct the situation and allow humanitarian
aid to get in.
What?
He had to abate a mistake right there.
He literally said the same. So if you're
not if you're correcting
something that then allows aid in,
it's basic deductive you can reverse that logic.
That means that you're
stopping aid from getting in. If you have
to correct it to allow it in, that

(02:54:29):
means you're doing something that's stopping it from
coming in. I mean, guys, this is how
dumb this has gotten. I mean, it was
stupid to start and obvious to start. Now
it has gotten cartoonish
like everything else.
How embarrassing. That's this is embarrassing. This pea
we need to make fun of these people.
They're clowns. Absolute clowns.

(02:54:49):
Now to just wrap up in general, I'm
gonna come back to this because this is
worthy of law more discussion. But there's a
UN locate basically, an an Irish
element of the UN peacekeepers that are currently
being attacked by Israel.
Just cutting to the chase of the UN
doc the point they're saying,
yesterday, IDF soldiers deliberately fired and disabled the
position's perimeter monitoring cameras. They fired on a

(02:55:10):
UN location. And we're see we're also seeing
bombings happen right around their area. They this
guy this guy is saying they were shot
at, like, the individuals. Here are you
Israeli entities literally saying, look. He says, I
think the mass rape of Ireland, Spain, and
Norway could clarify things for them. That's what
this guy just said.
That is Matthew
r j Brodsky, who Twitter has just removed.

(02:55:32):
Frankly, I think that's because he was saying
things they don't want us to see. That's
my opinion. But he has been censored apparently.
But he said Israel should carpet bomb the
Irish in the area, then drop napalm over.
That's what he said. This is what Israeli
entities in government are saying. They just don't
want you to see that. That's what I
think is happening. Because he apparently was deleted.
But why aren't they deleting everybody else that

(02:55:53):
are saying very similar things? I think it's
because he is making it obvious.
I genuinely think that.
But the bottom line,
even the BBC's covering it. They're disabling their
cameras. They're firing at them. I think a
massacre
of UN officials is imminent.
At the very least, nobody's caring that they're
firing openly at a UN we're not talking
about Gaza, guys. This is not Hamas.

(02:56:15):
Is there is now so is is the
UN Hezbollah now too?
It's just it's lazy, and it's embarrassing.
So we'll leave it there for today.
So thank you for tuning in, guys. I
really hope that first part of the show
today can get reach of people, clip this
out, talk about what's important. Thank you for
your ongoing support for this platform because we
are not going to stop.

(02:56:36):
No matter what.
Things can change, things can fluctuate,
whatever that may mean. There's where this stuff
go in the future but
the work will continue. So thank you for
continuing to believe in us, because we believe
in you. I love you all. As always,
question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Georgia Dioxin Risk “Six Times” Greater Than East Palestine & US Journalist Taken Hostage By Israel

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

Georgia Dioxin Risk “Six Times” Greater Than East Palestine & US Journalist Taken Hostage By Israel

Stuff You Should Know